SPEECH 

OF  THE 

HON.  JAMES  NOXON, 

OF  ONONDAGA, 


ON  THE 

TRINITY  CHURCH  BILL. 


Delivered  March  26,  1857. 


ALBANY : 

WEED,  PARSONS  &  COMPANY,  PRINTERS, 
1857. 


Digitized  by 

the  Internet , 

Archive 

in  2014 

http://archive.org/details/speechofhonjamesOOnoxo 


SPEECH 


IN  SENATE,  ) 
March  26,  1S57.  J 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole,  Mr.  Petty  in  the  Chair. 
Mr.  Noxon: 

It  is  well  known,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  at  the  last  session  of 
the  Legislature  a  committee  was  appointed  on  the  part  of  the 
Senate,  to  take  certain  testimony  in  matters  relating  to  Trinity 
Church,  by  way  of  filling  up  a  gap  which  had  been  left  by  that 
church,  unanswered,  in  certain  resolutions  which  were  propos- 
ed by  the  Senate  of  1855,  calling  upon  the  Corporation  of 
Trinity  to  make  answers  to  certain  questions  then  propounded. 
The  resolutions  to  which  I  allude  will  be  found  in  the  report  of 
the  committee  of  January  29,  1857. 

The  committee  proceeded  to  the  city  of  New- York  some 
months  prior  to  the  meeting  of  the  Legislature.  It  notified  the 
proper  parties  connected  with  the  church  that  the  committee 
was  in  session.  The  notice  was  served  on  the  officers  of  the  cor- 
poration. As  one  of  the  committee  having  that  matter  in 
charge,  I  had  hoped  that  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church 
would  see  fit  to  come  before  the  committee,  and  to  make  such 
statements  of  facts  as  would  enable  us  properly  to  discharge 
our  duty.  But  we  were  disappointed,  not  only  in  hearing  from 
Trinity  Church,  in  person,  but  also  in  finding  that  one  member 
of  the  vestry  refused  to  testify  before  the  committee  on  the 


4 


grounds,  as  stated  by  him,  that  there  was  a  controversy  going 
on  between  the  corporation  and  the  committee,  and  that  it  was 
not  proper  for  him  to  answer  questions  put  to  him  by  the  latter. 
Your  committee,  having  no  power  in  the  matter,  could  not  com- 
pel this  man  to  testify ;  but  I  ought  to  say,  in  justice  to  him 
and  to  Trinity,  that  he  has  since  consented  to  come  before  the 
committee  and  give  his  testimony. 

It  is  proper  to  state,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  look  upon  all  mat- 
ters regarding  the  law  now  proposed  to  be  amended  as  not  af- 
fected by  the  great  mass  of  testimony  presented  to  the  Senate  ; 
but  as  involving,  more  properly,  a  simple  question  of  law.  I 
do  not  look  upon  that  testimony,  in  any  particular,  as  bearing 
on  the  real  question  now  before  this  committee.  It  has  regard 
only  to  the  manner  of  executing  certain  powers  conferred  on 
the  corporation  by  grants  and  by  laws  of  the  State  of  New- 
York  ;  but  I  cannot  think  that  it  has  much  to  do  with  the  prin- 
ciples involved  in  the  present  discussion.  I  ought,  at  least,  to 
state  how  the  committee  viewed  it;  and  what  the  grant — the 
original  grant — as  we  have  looked  upon  it,  had  in  contempla- 
tion when  it  vested  certain  property  in  the  corporation  now 
known  as  Trinity  Church  ;  and  T  shall  refer  to  the  report  by 
way  of  giving  a  history  of  a  matter  which  is  now  one  of  the 
most  exciting  questions  that  has  for  sometime  agitated  the  city 
of  New-York,  and,  indeed,  the  country  at  large. 

In  the  original  charter  of  1697,  all  the  right  Trinity  Church 
had  to  the  chapel  and  grounds  adjoining  will  be  found  set  forth 
in  the  extract  from  that  charter,  on  page  3  of  the  special  com- 
mittee's report.  It  is  declared  therein  "  That  the  aforesaid 
church  [meaning  the  church  erected  previous  to  1697,  on  the 
site  upon  which  Trinity  Church  is  erected],  erected  and  built 
as  aforesaid,  and  situate  in  or  near  the  street  called  the  Broad- 
way, within  our  said  city  of  New-York,  and  the  ground  there- 
unto adjoining,  inclosed  and  used  for  a  cemetery  or  churchyard, 
shall  be  the  parish  church  and  churchyard  of  the  parish  of 
Trinity  Church,  within  our  said  city  of  New-York  ;  and  the 
same  is  hereby  declared  to  be  forever  separated  and  dedicated 


5 


to  the  service  of  God,  and  to  be  applied  therein;"  and  I  call 
now  the  especial  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  precise  language 
employed  :  "  to  the  use  and  behalf  of  the  inhabitants  from  time 
to  time  inhabiting  and  to  inhabit  within  our  said  city  of  New- 
York,  in  communion  of  our  said  Protestant  Church  of  England, 
as  now  established  by  our  laws,  and  to  no  other  use  or  purpose 
whatsoever." 

And  it  is  further  declared  in  the  same  charter  that  the  royal 
will  and  pleasure  is  to  make  and  create,  and  the  Rector  of  said 
parish,  "  together  with  all  the  inhabitants  from  time  to  time  in- 
habiting  and  to  inhabit  in  our  said  city  of  New-York,  and  in 
communion  of  our  aforesaid  Protestant  Church  of  England,  as 
now  established  by  our  laws,  are  created  a  body  corporate,"  &c, 
and  then  follows  the  name  of  the  corporation  created,  which 
is  in  these  words:  "We  have  ordained,  constituted,  and  de- 
clared by  these  presents,  for  us,  our  heirs  and  successors,  do 
ordain,  constitute,  and  declare,  that  he  (Lord  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don) and  his  successors,  and  all  such  of  our  loving  subjects  as 
now  are  or  hereafter  shall  be  admitted  into  the  communion  of 
the  aforesaid  Protestant  Chuch  of  England,  as  now  established 
by  our  laws,  shall  be  from  time  to  time,  and  forever  hereafter, 
a  body  corporate  and  politique,  in  fact  and  name,  by  the 
name  of  the  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  our  said  city  of  New- 
York,  in  communion  of  our  Protestant  Church  of  England,  as 
now  established  by  our  laws." 

So  it  will  be  preceived,  when  we  start  off  with  the  original 
charter,  that  it  grants  the  chapel  and  grounds  for  the  use  and 
behalf  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  in  communion  of  the  Pro- 
testant Church  of  England,  as  then  established  by  law.  It  is 
further  declared  in  the  same  charter,  that  to  manage  the  affairs 
of  the  corporation  there  shall  be  annually  elected  two  Church- 
wardens, and  twenty  Vestrymen,  "  by  the  majority  of  votes  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  said  parish  in  communion  as  aforesaid" — that  is, 
with  the  Protestant  Church  of  England  as  then  established  by 
law. 


G 


These  are  all  the  provisions  to  which  it  is  necessary  to  call 
the  attention  of  the  committee,  in  order  to  show  the  nature  of 
the  original  grant,  and  the  persons  who  were  entitled  to  vote 
under  it. 

The  parish,  by  the  grant,  was  declared  to  be  the  only  parish 
in  the  city,  and  there  can  be  no  question  the  original  intention 
was  to  convey  this  property  to  the  members  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  (or  Church  of  England)  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- 
York.  The  letter  and  spirit  of  the  grant  is  too  plain  to  admit 
of  any  controversy. 

When  we  come  to  the  next  legislation  in  regard  to  the  cor- 
poration, we  find  that  in  1704  the  Colonial  Legislature  confirmed 
the  grant  of  1697,  by  an  act  granting  sundry  privileges  and 
powers  to  the  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York, 
of  the  communion  of  the  church  of  England,  as  by  law  estab- 
lished. In  the  first  section  of  the  act  it  is  declared  that  "  the 
Rector,"  &c,  "  and  their  successors,"  be  able  to  sue,  &c.  (here 
enumerating  the  powers  of  the  corporation),  and  by  section  6 
of  said  act,  it  is  enacted  "  that  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  for  the 
inhabitants  aforesaid  to  assemble  and  meet  together  on  Tuesday, 
in  Easter  week,  annually,  at  the  said  church,  to  choose  two 
churchwardens  and  twenty  vestrymen,  communicants  of  the 
said  church,  to  serve  and  officiate  for  the  next  ensuing  year,  by 
the  majority  of  the  voice  of  the  said  communicants  so  met  and 
not  otherwise." 

As  to  the  meaning  of  "  the  inhabitants  aforesaid,"  as  used 
in  this  section,  the  title  of  the  act  and  the  previous  sections 
give  no  room  for  doubt.  The  title  expressed  the  act  to  be  for 
granting  -privileges  and  powers  to  the  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the 
city  of  New  -York,  of  the  communion  of  the  Church  of  England;  and 
the  recital  was  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  the  communion 
of  the  Church  of  England  had  by  voluntary  contribution  erected 
a  church  and  purchased  a  site.  The  first  section  provided  that 
the  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  said  city,  in  such  communion, 
should  be  known  in  law  by  the  name  of  "The  Rector  and  inhabi- 
tants of  the  city  of  New-York  in  communion  of  the  Church  of 


7 


England  as  by  law  established."  The  second  section  provided 
that  the  Rector  and  inhabitants,  and  their  successors,  should 
have  the  right  to  purchase,  take  and  hold  real  estate.  The 
third  section  provided  for  presentation  of  a  new  Rector  11  in  case 
of  death  of  the  Rector,"  by  the  Churchwardens  and  Vestrymen  of 
said  church  annually  elected  by  the  inhabitants  in  communion  as 
aforesaid. 

In  1705,  the  grant  of  Queen  Anne  is  made  to  this  corporation, 
thus  created  under  the  charter  of  1697,  and  the  colonial  act  of 
1704.  In  the  grant  itself,  it  is  recited  that,  whereas  the  rector 
and  inhabitants  had  been  incorporated,  with  power  to  take  lands, 
and  that  the  corporation  by  their  petition  to  the  governor  of  the 
province  of  New  York  had  prayed  that  the  Queen  would  grant 
and  confirm  to  their  use,  the  farm  known  as  the  Queen's  Farm,  and 
which  had  before  been  known  as  the  King's  Farm,  and  also  the 
Duke's  Farm,  following  these  recitals  we  come  to  the  grant. 

Mr.  Wadsworth  : 

From  what  is  the  Senator  reading  ? 

Mr.  Noxon  : 

From  Queen  Anne's  grant.  It  says  :  "  Know  ye  by  our  special 
grace,"  &c,  "  We  have  given,  granted,  ratified  and  confirmed, 
in  and  by  these  presents,  for  ourselves,  heirs  and  successors, 
we  do  give,  grant,  ratify  and  confirm,  unto  the  said  rector 
and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York,  in  communion 
of  the  church  of  England,  as  by  law  established,  and  their  suc- 
cessors, all  and  singular,  the  said  farm,"  &c,  "  to  have  and  to 
hold  said  farm,  the  several  leases,  &c,  unto  the  said  rector  and 
inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York,  in  communion  with  the 
church  of  England,  as  by  law  established,  and  their  successors 
forever." 

No  further  legislation  was  had  in  regard  to  the  corporation  until 
after  the  revolution.  In  1781  an  act  was  passed  making  such 
alterations  in  the  charter  of  the  corporation  as  to  render  it  more 
conformable  to  the  Constitution  of  the  State.  In  the  third  section 
of  that  act  it  is  enacted  as  follows  : 

III.  Be  it  further  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid.  That  all 
persons  professing  themselves  members  of  the  Episcopal  Church, 


8 


who  shall  either  hold,  occupy  or  enjoy  a  pew  or  seat  in  the  said 
church,  and  shall  regularly  pay  to  the  support  of  the  said  church, 
and  such  others  as  shall  in  the  said  church  partake  of  the  holy 
sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  at  least  once  in  every  year,  being 
inhabitants  of  the  city  and  county  of  New- York,  shall  be  entitled 
to  all  the  rights,  privileges,  benefits  and  emoluments,  which,  in  and 
by  the  said  charter  and  law  first  above  mentioned,  are  designed 
to  be  secured  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York  in  com- 
munion of  the  Church  of  England. 

And  preceding  this  third  section  is  a  preamble  in  the  following 
language  :  "  And  whereas  doubts  have  arisen  on  those  parts  of  the 
said  charter  and  law  first  mentioned,  which  speaks  of  inhabitants 
in  communion  of  the  said  Church  of  England;  for  removal, 
whereof,"  sec.  3,  "  Be  it  further  enacted,  &c." 

These  doubts  here  alluded  to,  are  as  to  that  part  of  the  char- 
ter which  speaks  of  the  people  "  in  communion  of  the  church 
of  England,"  to  whom  were  granted  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  the  original  charter.  It  will  be  perceived  that  now,  for  the 
first  time,  we  hear  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  mentioned 
instead  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  a  change  made  necessajy 
by  the  revolution.  So  that  under  this  act,  the  only  change 
made,  is  that  it  gives  the  same  powers  to  persons  in  communion 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  which  were  formerly  con- 
ferred on  those  in  communion  of  the  Church  of  England.  It 
adds,  also,  one  other  class  to  those  entitled  to  vote — those  who 
are  pew-holders  in  the  church  and  pay  regularly  towards  its 
support. 

It  is  claimed  by  the  present  corporation,  that  in  the  third  sec- 
tion which  I  have  read,  wherever  the  word  "  church"  occurs, 
it  refers  to  Trinity  Church,  and  indeed  it  is  absolutely  necessary 
that  this  position  should  be  taken,  for  if  it  does  not  refer  to 
Trinity  Church,  but  has  reference  to  the  Church  of  England,  it 
is  most  apparent  that  the  exclusive  right  claimed  by  Trinity 
Church  is  in  derogation  of  that  act.  Now,  it  is  most  remark- 
able, that  in  the  body  of  the  act  of  1784,  the  words  "  Trinity 
Church"  are  not  to  be  found,  and  the  title  of  the  act  which 
speaks  of  making  alterations  in  the  charter  of  the  Corporation 


r 


9 


of  Trinity  Churchy  was  clearly  an  assumption  of  the  existence 
of  a  corporation  which  never  existed  by  charter  or  law  until 
1814.  The  attention  of  the  committee  is  called  to  the  reasons 
expressed  in  the  preamble  for  the  enactment  of  section  three. 
What  are  the  doubts  spoken  of  in  the  preamble  ?  Are  they 
not  upon  the  charter  and  act  of  1704,  which  speaks  of  inhabi- 
tants in  communion  of  the  Church  of  England?  And  when 
section  three  makes  provision  for  removing  these  doubts,  is  it 
not  an  imposition  upon  the  credulity  of  men  to  maintain  that 
the  word  church  refers  to  anything  else  but  the  subject  matter 
which  the  section  was  designed  to  explain  ?  It  is  not  neces- 
sary for  us  to  go  beyond  this  act ;  a  legislative  construction  is 
given  as  to  the  corporators.  The  provision  is  broad  and  plain, 
that  communicants  and  pew-holders  in  the  Episcopal  Church, 
being  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- York,  are  entitled  to  the 
privileges  and 'emoluments  which  by  the  charter  and  act  of 
1704  were  designed  to  be  secured  to  the  inhabitants  so  being 
in  communion. 

The  applicants  for  the  modification  of  the  law  of  1814,  by 
virtue  of  the  act  of  1784,  have  secured  to  themselves  rights  and 
privileges,  upon  which  they  can  rest  with  entire  confidence.  And 
I  most  cordially  invite  discussion  and  debate  upon  the  provisions 
and  spirit  of  that  act. 

In  17S8 — four  years  afterwards — an  act  was  passed  which 
authorized  the  corporation  to  take  and  use  the  name  of  "  The 
Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New- York,  in  communion 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State  of  New- York," 
and  confirmed  all  grants,  deeds,  and  conveyances  made  to  them 
under  their  former  name.  No  other  alteration  was  made  in  the 
act  of  1788  at  all  material  to  this  matter. 

We  have  no  further  legislation  in  respect  to  the  corporation, 
from  1788  until  the  act  of  1814;  and  I  beg  to  call  the  particu- 
lar attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  words  of  certain  sections  of  the 
act.  By  the  first  section,  the  title  of  the  corporation  is  altered; 
and  it  is  provided  that  "from  and  after  the  passage  of  this  act, 
the  said  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  instead  of  their  present 
name,  shall  take  and  use  the  name  of  4  The  Rector,  Church  war- 


10 

dens  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  City  of  New 
York.' " 

By  section  two  of  the  same  act,  it  is  provided  "  that  all  male 
persons  of  full  age,  who,  for  the  space  of  one  year  preceding  any 
election,  shall  have  been  members  of  the  congregation  of  Trinity 
Church  aforesaid,  or  any  of  the  chapels  belonging  to  the  same, 
and  forming  part  of  the  same  religious  corporation,  and  who 
shall  hold,  occupy,  or  enjoy  a  pew  or  seat  in  Trinity  Church,  or 
in  any  of  the  said  chapels,  or  have  partaken  of  the  holy  commu- 
nion therein  within  the  said  year,  and  no  other  persons,  shall  be 
entitled  to  vote  at  the  annual  elections  for  the  churchwardens  and 
vestrymen  of  the  said  corporation." 

Now,  it  will  be  perceived  by  the  committee,  that  if  under  the 
original  grant  of  1697,  and  under  the  colonial  act  of  1704,  and  the 
act  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  in  1784,  the  inhabitants  of  the  city 
of  New- York  in  communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  or  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States,  had  a  right  to  vote 
on  matters  relating  to  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  ;  then  the 
act  of  1814  struck  down  that  right  and  took  it  away  from  them. 
Under  the  act  of  1814  it  will  be  seen  that  all  grants  given  to  com- 
municants in  other  Protestant  Episcopal  churches  not  immediately 
attached  to  Trinity,  were  annihilated  ;  that  if  there  is  any  such 
thing  as  a  vested  right  on  the  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  New-York 
in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church,  the  object  and 
effect  of  section  2  of  the  act  of  1814  was  to  strike  down  their  privi- 
leges, given  under  the  Colonial  acts  and  the  acts  of  the  Legislature 
of  the  State. 

The  special  committee,  believing  that  the  original  intent  of  all 
the  acts  up  to  1814  was  to  vest  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  people 
of  New- York  the  right  to  vote  for  vestrymen  in  Trinity  Church, 
have  introduced  a  bill  to  restore  to  them  those  rights.  By  section 
two  of  the  act  now  under  consideration,  we  do  restore  to  them 
those  rights,  while  we  take  away  not  one  privilege  ever  granted 
to  the  church.  We  are  but  asking  those  members  who  now  control 
the  affairs  of  the  corporation,  to  allow  those  who  were  corporators 
with  them  up  to  1814,  to  share  those  privileges  they  both  then 
enjoyed  in  common. 

It  may  be  urged  that  prior  to  the  act  of  1814,  the  parties  for 


11 


whose  rights  we  now  contend,  did  not  discharge  those  duties 
or  avail  themselves  of  those  privileges.  But  this  is  not  a  mat- 
ter for  us  to  consider.  The  only  question  which  should  guide 
us  here,  is  whether  they  really  possessed  the  rights  stripped 
from  them  in  1814.  As  a  purely  legal  question,  I  put  it  to  the 
Senate  to  say  whether  that  act  of  1814  was  not  distinctly  opposed 
to  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  original  grants. 

I  am  not  here  at  this  time,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  charge  Trinity 
Church  with  having  come  to  this  Capitol  to  get  that  act  through 
the  legislature  by  wicked  and  improper  motives.  She  may 
have  had  the  purest  intentions  for  aught  I  know  or  care  at  the 
present  time,  in  securing  that  law ;  but  the  question  is,  what 
are  we  to  say  and  to  do  now  that  the  subject  is  presented  to  us? 

The  Senate  knows,  and  I  know  the  difficulties  this  legisla- 
ture has  experienced  in  investigating  this  matter.  The  first 
thing  we  did,  when  the  abuses  of  the  corporation  were  brought 
to  our  notice,  was  simply  to  pass  resolutions  designed  to  elicit 
the  facts  in  the  case.  But  they  were  useless,  for  she  defied  us. 
Trinity  Church  haughtily  defied  the  State  of  New-York.  She 
was  a  corporation,  with  grants  with  which  we  could  not  inter- 
fere. She  had  vested  rights  which  were  out  of  our  power  to 
touch.  No  legislature,  she  said,  could  call  her  to  account  for 
the  manner  in  which  she  discharged  the  duties  conferred  upon 
her  in  her  grants  and  laws.  Sir,  I  believe  that  these  corpora- 
tions are  only  the  creatures  of  law,  and  that  they  are  all  bound 
to  report  to  us  their  acts  and  to  abide  by  the  decision  and  judg- 
ment of  the  legislature. 

But  Trinity  Church  does  not  stop  here.  Not  only  does  she  deny 
the  right  of  the  Legislature  to  interfere  in  any  manner  with  her 
affairs ;  but  when  deeming  it  prudent  to  report,  how  does  she  do 
so  ?  She  reports  by  spreading  out  on  your  tables  no  names  of  her 
corporators ;  and  when  taxed  with  the  omission,  says  she  did  not 
suppose  you  needed  them.  Why  ?  did  not  the  Senate  understand 
what  they  wanted  ?  Is  Trinity  Church  to  come  here  and  say 
to  the  Senate  that  she  did  not  understand  herself,  nor  know 
what  she  required?  Sir,  I  accord  more  justice  and  more  intelli- 
gence to  the  Senate  of  1855  than  to  suppose  they  adopted  resolu- 


12 


tions,  calling  for  certain  information,  without  understanding  what 
they  were  about.  But  although  Trinity  Church  would  not  then 
allow  us  to  have  the  names  of  her  corporators,  she  finally  does  so. 
She  yields  inch  by  inch — protesting  at  every  step — until  finally 
what  do  we  find  her  doing  ?  Why,  she  comes  to  us  at  last,  not 
insolent  and  protesting,  but  begging  —  humbly  begging  —  and 
petitioning,  in  the  form  of  remonstrances,  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  of  New-York  to  let  her  alone,  and  not  to  take  away  her 
powers.  I  ask  Senators  to  look  at  the  flood  of  remonstrances  from 
all  parts  of  the  State  that  have  been  poured  into  this  Chamber. 
They  come  from  the  same  power  that  would  not  only  control  the 
Legislature,  but  is  controlling,  with  iron  and  despotic  will,  all  the 
churches  in  the  State  of  New- York  belonging  to  the  same  denomi- 
nation, who  have  been  the  recipients  of  her  bounties. 

And  yet  this  is  called  a  Religious  Corporation.  God  save  the 
word  !  A  Religious  Corporation !  why  it  has  not  the  least 
scintilla  of  spiritual  life — it  is  like  all  other  corporations  without 
soul.  It  grovels  among  the  things  of  this  earth — among  matters 
with  which  a  purely  religious  corporation  could  have  no  connection 
or  sympathy.  Its  affairs  are  managed,  and  its  duties  performed 
by  standing  committees,  responsible  to  no  one. 

There  has  been  a  good  deal  of  feeling  manifested  in  this  mat- 
ter of  Trinity  Church,  but  it  has  been  occasioned  by  persons 
interested  in  getting  up  such  feeling.  In  order  to  carry  out 
their  plans,  it  seems  the  Senate  is  first  to  be  attacked  and  then 
the  Special  Committee.  What  are  the  charges  made  against 
the  committee?  We  are  accused  of  having  spread  false  things 
before  the  public.  It  is  for  the  Senate  to  say  whether  the  facts 
we  set  forth  are  not  fully  justified  by  the  evidence. 

Mr.  Spencer  : 

Will  the  Senator  give  way?  It  is  now  past  the  usual  hour 
for  adjournment,  and  I  desire  to  move  that  the  committee  rise 
and  report  progress. 

Mr.  Noxon  yielded  the  floor  for  the  motion,  and  the  commit- 
tee rose  and  the  Senate  adjourned. 


13 


IN  SENATE,  Thudsday,  1  P.  M. 
The  Senate  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  Trinity  Church 
bill,  Mr.  Darling  in  the  chair. 

Mr.  Noxon  said : 

Mr.  Chairman:  In  addressing  the  committee  upon  this  bill,  I 
desire  to  briefly  recapitulate  the  points  I  have  taken  in  support 
of  the  bill,  in  order  that  the  committee  may  bear  in  view,  and 
have  in  their  minds  the  true  question  before  the  committee. 
The  statement  I  first  made  was  that  the  title  of  the  corporation, 
created  by  the  grant  from  the  English  Crown,  in  1697,  was, 
"  The  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  our  said  city  of  New-York,  in 
Communion  of  our  Protestant  Church  of  England,  as  now  es- 
tablished by  our  laws."  Second.  That  under  that  grant  the  church 
and  churchyard  were  "  forever  separated  and  dedicated  to  the 
service  of  God,  and  to  be  applied  therein,  to  the  use  and  behalf 
of  the  inhabitants  from  time  to  time  inhabiting,  and  to  inhabit 
within  our  said  City  of  New-York,  in  communion  of  our  said 
Protestant  Church  of  England,  as  now  established  by  our  laws, 
and  to  no  other  use  or  purpose  whatsoever."  Third.  That  for 
managing  the  business  of  the  corporation,  there  were  annually 
elected  two  churchwardens  and  twenty  vestrymen,  "  by  the 
majority  of  votes  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  Parish,  in  com- 
munion as  aforesaid."  Fourth.  That  in  1704  this  grant  was 
confirmed  by  the  colonial  act  which  conferred  "  sundry  privi- 
leges and  powers  on  the  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
New-York,  of  the  communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  by 
law  established."  Fifth.  That  the  estate  known  as  the  Queen's 
Farm,  was  granted  in  1705  by  Queen  Anne,  unto  "  The  said 
Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York,  in  communion 
of  the  Church  of  England,  as  by  law  established,  and  their  suc- 
cessors all  and  singular."  Sixth.  That  in  17S4  an  act  was 
passed  to  make  the  charter  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  more 
conformable  to  the  constitution  of  the  State ;  and  that  section 
3  of  that  act,  to  clear  up  doubts  which  had  arisen  on  those 
points  of  the  original  charter  which  spoke  of  inhabitants  in 


14 


communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  declared  that  members 
of  the  Episcopal  Church,  who  were  communicants,  or  held  pews 
in  the  church  and  paid  regularly  towards  its  support,  should 
have  the  right  to  vote.  Seventh.  That  in  17S8  the  title  of  the 
corporation  was  changed  to  "  The  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of 
the  City  of  New-York,  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church  in  the  State  of  New-York."  Eighth.  That  in  1814, 
all  the  corporators  who  were  not  communicants  of  Trinity,  or 
her  parishes,  were  cut  off  from  the  rights  and  privileges  enjoyed 
by  them  under  the  original  charter  and  subsequent  acts. 

Perhaps  I  ought  to  say,  before  leaving  this  branch  of  the  case 
(which  treats  of  the  rights  of  Trinity  Church  as  now  claimed,  and 
under  the  acts  and  grants  of  the  Crown  and  of  the  Colonial 
and  our  own  State  legislatures),  something  with  regard  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814  was  procured,  and 
what  led  to  its  adoption.  There  can  be  no  question  that  so  far 
as  the  Protestant  Episcopal  people  of  the  city  of  New- York  were 
concerned,  there  were  a  great  number  who  had  rights  secured  to 
them  under  the  original  charter,  who  were  opposed  to  the  act.  I 
ought  to  say  that  the  act  of  1814  never  really  received  the  sanction 
of  the  Council  of  Revision.  There  was  a  division  in  the  Council 
on  that  question;  and  it  was  necessary,  in  order  that  the  act  of 
1814  might  become  a  law,  that  it  should  pass  the  Council  of  Re- 
vision. The  Council  at  that  time  consisted  of  D.  D.  Tompkins, 
Governor,  Chancellors  Lansing  and  Kent,  William  W.  Van  Ness, 
Ambrose  Spencer,  and  Robert  Yates.  Perhaps  not  from  that  time 
to  the  present  has  there  been  a  more  distinguished  and  abler  set 
of  jurists  assembled  together,  than  the  distinguished  men  who 
composed  that  Council  of  Revision.  When  the  question  came  up, 
there  was  but  one  of  the  Council  of  Revision  who  finally  voted 
upon  it,  who  favored  the  act  of  1814.  Chancellor  Lansing  him- 
self long  entertained  objections  to  the  bill  ;  and  unless  he  had 
passed  over  and  voted  on  the  other  side,  it  never  would  have  be- 
come a?  law.  Kent,  Lansing,  Spencer,  Yates — every  one  of  those 
distinguished  men,  then  the  brightest  luminaries  of  the  State — 
every  one  of  them  originally  opposed  the  act  of  1814.  I  may  add 
that  from  the  testimony,  it  appears  that  one  of  those  men — Chan- 


15 


cellor  Kent — known  and  distinguished,  not  here  alone,  but 
throughout  the  world,  after  voting  for  the  bill,  pronounced  it  as 
his  opinion  that  the  law  was  unconstitutional.  I  speak  of  Chan- 
cellor James  Kent. 

Now  it  is  clear  that  as  the  matter  stood,  the  act  of  1814  was 
not,  as  is  contended,  conceded  on  all  hands  to  be  right.  There 
were  rights  to  be  affected  by  that  act ;  but  the  fact  is,  the  council 
of  revision  placed  great  reliance  in  Judge  Troup  the  leading 
Vestryman  of  the  church,  who  promised  that  the  government  and 
management  of  the  affairs  of  the  church,  under  the  law  of  1814, 
should  be  the  same  as  it  had  been  prior  to  its  passage.  They 
then  fell  in  with  his  views,  and  allowed  the  law  to  pass.  I  do 
not  believe  there  can  be  any  question  but  that  the  mind  of  Chan- 
cellor Lansing  was  influenced  by  Judge  Troup,  as  to  the  rights 
affected  by  the  bill  of  1814,  and  the  management  proposed  after  it 
should  become  a  law.  But  for  the  influence  of  Judge  Troup  over 
Lansing,  who  presented  the  objections  to  the  Council  of  Revision, 
he  never  could  have  been  prevailed  upon  to  have  voted  against 
his  own  unanswerable  objections. 

I  have  now  said  as  much  as  is  necessary  respecting  the  ques- 
tions of  law.  1  will  now  proceed  to  examine  the  evidence  given 
before  your  committee. 

It  will  be  recollected  that  by  the  resolution  which  passed  the 
Senate  in  1853,Trinity  church  was  called  upon  to  set  forth  the  value 
of  her  real  estate.  It  is  well  known  how  Trinity  church  reported. 
Whether  the  corporation  in  their  answer  to  the  resolution  of  the 
Senate  were  actuated  by  high  and  noble  principles  it  is  not  for 
me  to  say  ;  but  I  must  revert  to  it  in  order  that  the  Senate  may 
understand  what  the  value  is. 

The  reply  of  thejChurch  was  grounded  upon  the  valuation  of 
the  assessors  and  not  upon  the  value  she  herself  puts  upon  the 
property.  And  what  is  that  valuation?  About  $1,500,000. 
Your  committee  in  prosecuting  the  labors  you  had  assigned  to 
them,  and  in  taking  testimony  for  that  purpose,  proceeded  dif- 
ferently. They  called  witnesses  who  knew  the  property,  to  prove 
the  value  of  the  real  estate  owned  by  the  corporation,  and  the 
proof  thus  elicited  is  submitted  to  the  Senate.  I  would  refer  Sena- 
tors to  the  report  to  show  them  that  the  actual  value  of  the 


16 


property  upon  which  this  valuation  of  a  million  and  a  half  was 
put,  exclusive  of  buildings}  amounts  to  about  six  millions  of 
dollars. 

Mr.  Wads  worth  : 

Will  the  Senator  tell  us  what  incumbrances  there  are  upon  that 
property  ? 

Mr.  Noxon  : 

It  has  no  incumbrances  that  are  worth  speaking  of.  The 
mortgages  and  securities  the  church  possesses  outside  this  real 
estate,  leaves  her,  in  the  judgment  of  your  committee,  with 
property  in  her  hands  worth  nearly  if  not  quite  810,000,000. 
I  ought,  in  justice  to  the  appraisers,  to  say,  that  one  of  them,  a 
responsible  person,  stated  he  would  take  every  dollar  of  the 
property  at  its  valuation — six  or  seven  millions — and  pay  cash 
for  it. 

I  now  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the 
valuation  of  some  portions  of  the  property  by  the  corporation 
and  by  the  special  committee  ;  and  I  do  this  in  order  that  the 
committee  may  understand  whether  or  not  there  was  a  design 
on  the  part  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  to  make  any 
concealment  in  the  matter  of  their  property,  without  myself 
charging  such  design  directly  upon  them.  And  first,  I  refer 
Senators  to  page  8  of  the  report  of  the  select  committee  made 
in  1S55 ;  in  which  they  will  find  that  the  corporation  estimates 
the  value  of  No.  351  Broadway,  at  $12,081.56.  This  property 
is  estimated  by  one  appraiser  at  $100,000,  and  by  another  at 
$115,000.  I  also  refer  you  to  the  valuation  by  the  corporation,  on 
page  9  of  the  first  report,  of  the  lots  Nos.  136,  138,  140,  and 
142  Chambers-street — which  I  believe  is  the  depot  of  the  Hud- 
son River  Railroad — which  valuation  is  $2S, 827.40.  And  what 
is  the  proof  on  this  point?  Why,  the  proof  is,  that  when  the 
committee  come  to  value  this  property,  they  find  the  fact  to  be 
that  Trinity  Church  leases  the  same  lots  at  a  ground  rent  of 
$5000.  This  she  herself  fixes  to  be  at  the  rate  of  5  per  cent, 
on  the  value;  thus  making  the  valuation  of  the  property,  by 
her  own  estimate,  one  hundred  thousand  dollars. 


17 


I  may  be  permitted  to  say  here  that  this  negotiation,  by 
which  Trinity  Church  fixed  the  valuation  of  the  Chambers-street 
property  at  $100,000,  was  made  about  two  months  before  the 
report  which  they  submitted  to  the  Senate. 

I  call  the  attention  also  to  the  report,  where  this  corporation 
values  the  lot  275  Greenwich-street  at  $6840.60,  a  lot  which 
by  actual  sale  a  few  days  previous  to  the  report,  was  sold  for 
the  sum  of  $20,000. 

Again,  no  mention  whatever  is  made  by  Trinity  Church 
of  the  St.  John's  square  property.  It  was  a  matter  of  too  little 
consequence  to  report  the  valuation  which  the  church  put  upon 
the  square;  and  yet  it  is  estimated  by  Trinity  herself,  in  a  ne- 
gotiation for  its  sale,  at  the  modest  sum  o^four  hundred  thousand 
dollars  ! 

But  these  discrepancies  in  the  valuations  are  all  explained 
and  excused  by  Trinity  in  a  few  words,  when  she  says  "  why, 
in  our  report  we  took  the  assessors*  valuation." 

I  would  next  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  another 
branch  of  the  case — that  relating  to  the  corporators.  We  have 
now  some  information  respecting  them.  Although  in  reply  to 
the  original  resolutions  of  the  Senate,  we  could  only  get  the 
number  of  the  corporators,  and  not  the  names ;  the  committee, 
in  taking  testimony,  did,  through  the  reports  sent  to  them  on 
behalf  of  Trinity  Church,  find  what  were  the  names  of  com- 
municants in  the  church,  and  of  the  pew-holders,  and  the  total 
number  entitled  to  vote  as  corporators.  And  I  may  here  say 
that  we  have  had  placed  upon  the  files  of  the  Senate,  since  our 
last  report,  memorials  impugning  in  a  measure  the  action  of  the 
committee  in  regard  to  the  report  she  made  relative  to  the  list 
of  corporators.  These  memorials  set  forth  the  charge  that  the 
committee  have  drawn  conclusions  not  warranted  by  the  testi- 
mony. A  protest  was  then  placed  upon  our  files  against  the 
committee,  asserting  that  they  have  made  charges  against  the 
corporation  not  borne  out  by  the  evidence.  Now,  what  was 
the  statement  of  the  committee  on  this  point?  Simply  that  it 
had  been  a  most  difficult  matter  for  several  years,  even  to  get 
2 


18 


a  sight  at  the  list  of  corporators.  I  beg  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  committee  to  some  points  in  the  reported  evidence;  and  I 
will  ask  them,  after  loooking  at  the  testimony,  to  say  whether 
we  were  right  in  that  assertion,  or  whether  Trinity  Church  is 
right  in  charging  that  we  are  dragging  her  before  the  Senate  to 
place  her  in  a  false  position. 

I  say  that  for  eighteen  years  —  eighteen  long  years  —  one  of 
her  own  clergymen,  who  ministered  at  her  own  altar,  was  not 
allowed  to  look  into  the  list  of  corporators  of  that  church.  I 
refer  the  Senate  to  page  83  of  the  first  report.  Dr.  Higbee 
swears  that  he  has  been  an  assistant  Minister  in  Trinity  Church 
for  18  years,  and  says :  "  I  have  never  been  able  to  see  a  list  of 
the  corporators  of  Trinity  Church.  Dr.  Wainright  and  myself 
have  made  several  efforts  to  obtain  such  a  list  unsuccessfully. 
Dr.  Wainright,  after  being  made  bishop,  told  me  he  did  re- 
ceive such  a  list."  In  examining  the  Comptroller  of  the  church, 
in  New-York  city,  some  questions  came  up,  suggested  by  the 
replies  of  the  Comptroller,  as  to  the  list  of  corporators.  The 
question  was  put  to  him,  u  Have  you  a  list  of  the  voters  in 
your  possession?"  To  which  he  answered,  "  One  of  the  lists 
was  lost  and  afterwards  found,  and  the  number  but  not  the 
names  was  added  to  our  report.  T  presume  their  names  are  in 
the  office  ;  if  the  committee  of  the  vestry  authorize  me  to  fur- 
nish such  list  I  will  do  so?" 

Why,  is  it  not  strange  that  the  Comptroller  of  such  a  corpora- 
tion as  this,  testifying  before  a  committee  of  the  Senate,  should 
affect  so  little  knowledge  of  the  affairs  of  his  own  church?  Is 
it  not  strange  that  when  questioned  as  to  the  list  of  corporators, 
he  should  fall  back  upon  the  "  Committee  of  the  Vestry,"  and 
say,  "  if  the  Committee  of  the  Vestry  authorize  me  to  furnish 
such  a  list,  I  will  do  so?" 

At  page  64,  in  assigning  a  reason  why  the  names  of  the  cor- 
porators were  not  given  in  the  report,  the  comptroller  in  a 
communication  addressed  to  the  committee  states  it  to  be  : 
"  because  the  vestry  were  not  aware  that  the  liberty  to  inspect 
a  list  of  such  names  had  ever  been  refused  to  any  corporator." 


19 


The  Senators  will  pay  particular  attention  to  these  words.  I 
now  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  testi- 
mony of  the  rector,  on  page  55  of  the  second  report.  It  will 
be  borne  in  mind  that  the  language  used  by  the  comptroller  is, 
that  he  was  not  aware  that  the  liberty  of  inspecting  the  names 
had  ever  been  refused  to  any  of  the  corporators.  Was  he  not 
aware  that  Bishop  Wainright  had  tried  for  years  to  get  a  list 
of  the  corporators,  in  vain?  Was  he  not  aware  that  the  vene- 
rable rector  himself  had  refused  to  show  Bishop  Wainwright 
such  list?  I  will  now  proceed  to  read  the  testimony  of  Dr. 
Berrian,  as  to  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  a  sight  of  the  names 
of  the  corporators  : 

Q.  You  speak  of  a  resolution  having  passed  the  vestry,  in 
relation  to  allowing  Bishop  Wainright  to  take  a  copy  of  a  list 
of  corporators.  What  called  for  this  action  on  the  part  of  the 
vestry?  A.  The  reason  was,  the  bishop  wrote  to  me  request- 
ing the  list  from  me.  I  replied  that  I  had  no  power  myself  to 
lend  the  book,  though  he  had  the  right  to  examine  it. 

Q.  When  was  it?  A.  I  think  it  was  in  1853,  shortly  after 
he  became  bishop. 

Q.  Had  he  applied  for  it  previously  without  success?  A.  I 
understood  that  he  applied  to  a  clerk  in  the  vestry  office,  who 
declined,  as  I  did,  because  he  had  not  the  power  to  do  it. 

So  then  we  find  the  bishop  asking  not  only  the  rector,  but  a 
clerk  in  the  vestry  office  —  trying  in  some  manner  or  other  to 
get  a  list  of  the  corporators.    But  to  continue  : 

Q.  Did  he  ask  to  see  it?  A.  I  do  not  know;  I  presume  he 
did  ;  I  think  he  asked  me  to  see  it. 

Q.  Did  you  show  it  to  him?    A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  Why  not?  A.  I  have  not  the  custody  of  the  book.  It 
is  not  in  my  office  or  custody. 

I  ask  the  committee  to  pay  particular  attention  to  the  language 
here  used  by  the  Reverend  Doctor,  and  to  see  whether  he  is 
not  attempting  to  be  a  little  scholastic  over  this  matter,  and 
endeavoring  to  select  his  words  somewhat  carefully.  But  we 
come  to  the  next  question  : 


20 


Q.  Who  had  it?    A.  At  that  particular  time  it  was  with  me. 

I  suppose  by  the  way  the  answer  is  given,  the  Rev.  Doctor 
sought  to  avail  himself  of  a  special  plea,  as  some  lawyers  are 
apt  to  do.  Although  the  book  was  with  him  in  fact,  yet  in  the 
eye  of  the  law  it  was  not  with  him.  I  now  call  attention  to 
the  language  used,  after  it  has  been  admitted  that  the  book 
was  in  his  hands. 

Q.  Why  did  you  not  show  it  to  him  ?  A.  I  had  it  for  the 
purpose  of  entering  the  names  of  new  communicants,  and  the 
changes  by  death  and  removal. 

Q.  Did  that  prevent  your  showing  it  to  him?  A.  I  had  no 
control  in  the  matter.  I  looked  upon  the  book  as  belonging  to 
the  comptroller  and  not  to  me. 

Well,  we  might  stop  right  here  and  ask,  who  is  the  head  of 
the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  —  the  comptroller,  who  is 
simply  the  agent  of  the  corporation,  or  the  Reverend  Rector? 
The  Rector  seems  certainly  to  have  an  idea  that  he  has  no 
power  over  whatever  is  in  the  possession  of  the  comptroller  or 
any  other  officer.    The  evidence  continues  : 

Q.  What  are  your  powers,  if  any,  over  the  books  of  the  cor- 
poration ?  A.  I  have  the  sole  custody  of  the  parish  register, 
containing  the  records  of  baptisms,  marriages  and  burials;  and 
those  are  the  only  books  over  which  I  have  any  control,  though 
they  are  all  open  to  my  examination. 

Q,.  Do  you  know  of  anything  in  the  act  of  incorporation,  or  rules 
of  the  vestry,  to  prevent  your  showing  the  book  to  any  person  who 
applies  to  see  it  ?    A.  I  do  not. 

Q,.  Then  I  again  ask  why  you  did  not  show  it  to  him  ?  A.  Be- 
cause I  thought  it  was  the  proper  business  of  the  comptroller  to  let 
him  see  it. 

Now,  then,  they  come  here  with  their  memorials,  crowding  the 
files  of  the  Senate,  and  say  that  your  committee  have  egregiously 
erred  in  saying  that  there  was  ever  any  difficulty  in  obtaining  a 
list  of  the  Corporators  of  Trinity  Church  ! 

I  cite  now — without  particular  reference  to  it — the  testimony  of 
John  De  Wolf,  for  many  years  Vestryman  of  Trinity  Church,  and 
who  testifies  that  he  never  saw  the  list,  although  ten  years  a 


21 


vestryman.  And  yet  they  say  that  the  reason  they  do  not  produce 
the  names  of  their  corporators  is  because  they  supposed  that  any 
person  applying  could  at  any  time  have  obtained  the  list! 

But  this  is  not  all.  Perhaps  the  richest  thing  of  the  whole  is 
the  statement  they  make  as  to  the  ninety-two  corporators  that  are 
communicants  of  Trinity  Church  and  all  her  parishes,  and  the  two 
hundred  pewholders  ;  making  in  all  about  three  hundred  to  ad- 
minister the  vast  funds  of  the  corporation.  May  I  not  stop  here 
and  ask,  if  Trinity  Church  has  in  one  hundred  and  sixty  years 
added  to  her  communicants  ninety-two  persons  :  if  she  has  done 
thus  much  for  the  cause  of  the  Episcopal  church,  what  may  we 
expect  that  she  will  come  to  in  one  hundred  and  sixty  years  more  ? 

But  when  she  makes  this  report  to  the  Senate  and  spreads  out 
before  us  her  ninety-two  corporators,  and  her  two  hundred  pew- 
holders, even  then  she  does  not  tell  the  truth  ;  because  we  have 
evidence  to  show  that  not  over  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  of  the 
three  hundred  returned  here,  are  now  at  the  present  time  communi- 
cantsor  pew-holders  in  the  church.  I  desire  to  present  to  the  commit- 
tee better  evidence  bearing  on  this  question,  and  shall  refer  them  to 
the  report  for  that  purpose.  The  list  containing  the  names  will 
be  found  on  page  68,  in  a  schedule  annexed  to  a  communication 
from  the  comptroller  to  your  committee,  by  which  he  makes  an 
exhibit  of  the  corporators  who  are  not  pew-holders.  The  number 
is  ninety-two.  On  the  next  page,  sixty-nine,  the  whole  number 
of  corporators  as  pew-holders,  is  made  two  hundred  and  twenty- 
one.  So  there  are  in  all,  as  stated  in  these  schedules,  three 
hundred  and  thirteen  corporators  of  Trinity  Church.  Now  I  have 
before  me  evidence  to  show  that  from  the  ninety-two  names  sent 
in  to  the  Senate  of  the  State  of  New- York  as  being  corporators, 
communicants  of  that  church,  the  following  should  be  deducted  : 

Two  are  dead — 

Mr.  Brooks  : 

Will  the  Senator  state  whether  they  were  dead  at  the  time  the 
report  was  made? 


22 


Mr.  Noxon  : 

One  has  died  since  the  report — the  other  was  dead  at  the  time; 
twenty-two  have  no  directory  address;  seven  have  removed  from 
the  city;  four  have. gone  over  to  other  churches. 

Nine  are  Rectors,  Clergymen,  &c,  and  ten  are  Vestrymen. 

This  makes  a  total  of  54. 

But  from  these  we  should  perhaps  deduct  the  Vestrymen,  Rec- 
tor, Clergymen,  &c,  numbering  19.  This  would  leave,  as  the 
corporators  of  Trinity  Church  who  are  communicants,  57. 

This  is  all.  The  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  presents  here, 
through  its  officers,  a  list  of  the  corporators,  and  the  facts  show 
that  its  92  dwindled  down  to  57. 

But  let  us  go  a  little  further.  We  will  not  stop  at  the  corpora- 
tors who  are  communicants ;  we  go  on  to  the  corporators  who  are 
pew  holders.  The  Senators  will  recollect  that  at  page  69,  the 
the  number  of  these  is  put  down  at  221.  Of  these,  18  are  sup- 
posed to  be  dead — at  least  they  cannot  be  found,  nor  are  their 
names  in  the  Directory.  42  have  removed  from  the  city  of  New- 
York.    45  are  known  to  be  dead. 

Mr.  Brooks  : 

Will  the  Senator  allow  me  to  ask  him,  if,  at  the  time  the  report 
was  made,  42  of  the  pew-holders  were  absentees  from  the  city? 

Mr.  Noxon: 

Yes,  sir;  and  I  will  add  that  49  had  removed  to  other  congrega- 
tions ;  15  were  Vestrymen,  Sexton,  Clerk,  &c,  and  2  are  not 
Episcopalians.  Now  there  may  be  some  power  or  other  trans- 
mitted by  the  dead  and  the  absent  by  which  to  enable  the  corpo- 
ration to  swell  up  the  number  to  221.  But  the  total  number  not 
to  be  found  among  these  pew-holders — including  one  duplicate 
name — is  168.  If  we  deduct  from  this  the  15  Vestrymen  of  the 
church,  Sexton,  &c,  it  will  leave  68  as  the  actual  number  of  pew- 
holders.  So  that  the  whole  number  of  corporators  in  Trinity 
Church,  in  New- York  city,  is  actually  57  communicants  and  68 
pew-holders — making  a  total  125. 

Mr.  Noxon  at  this  point  gave  way  for  a  motion  to  rise  and  report 
progress,  and  the  Senate  adjourned. 


23 


IN  SENATE,  March  27,  12£  M. 
The  Senate,  in  committee  of  the  whole,  resumed  the  considera- 
tion of  the  Trinity  Church  bill. 

Mr.  Noxon  said  :  Mr.  Chairman — while  addressing  the  Senate 
yesterday,  and  at  the  time  the  committee  reported  progress  on  this 
bill,  I  was  making  some  remarks  in  regard  to  the  corporators,  and 
I  was  showing  that  in  the  report  made  by  Trinity  Church  to  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  New- York,  the  number  of  corporators, 
as  communicants,  was  set  down  as  92,  and  the  number  as  pew 
holders  at  221,  making  313  in  all  who  were  represented  on  the 
part  of  the  corporators  as  entitled  to  vote  in  the  election  of  war- 
dens and  vestrymen  in  that  church.  I  also  said  the  representa- 
tions made  by  that  corporation  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
New- York  were  untrue;  for  that  instead  of  there  being  that  number 
of  corporators,  there  were  but  57  of  the  one  class  and  68  of  the  other, 
making  the  total  number  125. 

I  now  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  another  branch,  and 
perhaps  a  more  interesting  branch,  of  this  case  in  connection  with 
Trinity  Church.  It  is  claimed  on  the  part  of  the  persons  who 
have  been  deprived  of  the  rights  secured  to  them  under  the  origi- 
nal charter  and  the  laws  of  the  State  of  New- York,  that  the  trust 
entrusted  to  this  corporation,  under  the  charter  and  laws,  is  ad- 
ministered by  them  on  party  grounds;  and  that  in  addition  to  the 
administration  of  the  fund  on  party  grounds,  the  aid  they  render 
to  the  churches  of  New- York,  and  to  those  in  the  country,  is  ren- 
dered in  such  a  manner  as  to  create  a  dependence  on  the  corpora- 
tion of  Trinity  Church,  on  the  part  of  those  who  receive  such  aid. 
This,  I  say,  is  the  claim  made  on  the  part  of  the  men  who  state 
that  they  are  dispossessed  and  deprived  of  rights  guaranteed  to 
them  in  the  original  charter,  by  the  law  of  1814. 

I  beg  leave  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  that  part 
of  the  evidence  bearing  on  this  branch  of  the  case ;  and  I  ask 
them  to  say,  from  the  proof,  whether  this  corporation,  in  ad- 
ministering the  fund  given  for  the  benefit  of  all,  does  so  im- 
partially and  fairly,  or  partially  and  for  the  benefit  of  those  only 
who  side  with  Trinity?  And  first  I  call  the  attention  of  the 
committee  to  page  83  of  the  first  report,  in  which  the  evidence 


24 

of  a  clergyman  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  who  had  been  for  18 
years  a  minister  in  the  city  of  New-York,  is  given.  He  swears 
before  the  committee  that  he  has  been  acquainted  with  Trinity 
Church,  and  the  management  of  her  fund  in  a  considerable  de- 
gree, and  says,  "  1  do  not  consider  the  trust  has  been  adminis- 
tered in  such  a  way  as  best  to  promote  the  object  for  which  it 
was  given.  Their  course,  in  certain  instances,  to  my  knowlege, 
has  been  partial.  I  speak  of  their  partiality  as  a  fact,  to  my 
certain  knowledge.  It  is  a  notorious  fact,  that  while  some 
churches  have  had  aid  to  an  excessive  amount,  others  have  been 
entirely  cut  off*  or  proscribed." 

I  also  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  page  104  of  the 
first  report,  on  which  page  will  be  found  the  testimony  of  a 
clergyman  of  the  protestant  Episcopal  Church,  who  holds  a  high 
position  in  the  city  of  New-York.  I  allude  to  the  Rector  of 
Grace  Church,  that  venerable  and  pious  man,  who,  speaking  on 
the  very  point  to  which  I  am  calling  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee, gives  the  following  evidence  : 

The  question  is  put  as  to  whether,  in  his  opinion,  Trinity 
Church  is  doing  her  utmost  to  make  the  capital  of  the  corpora- 
tion available  for  the  founding,  support  or  promotion  of  reli- 
gious, charitable  or  educational  institutions  or  purposes?  The 
answer  is,  "  from  outward  observation  of  their  acts,  I  should 
say  not." 

The  question  is  then  propounded,  "In  what  respect?"  He 
replies:  "Because  they  have  not  multiplied  churches  through- 
out the  city  to  any  extent,  in  proportion  to  their  means.  The 
aid  which  they  have  extended  to  feeble  churches  has  been  done 
reluctantly  and  offensively,  either  by  taking  mortgages  on  the 
churches  to  which  they  advanced  money,  or  by  annual  pay- 
ments to  the  support  of  the  minister;  in  either  way  increasing 
their  power  over  the  corporations  and  ministers  of  the  church  to 
an  extent  which  was  fatal  to  all  independence  of  thought  or 
action  on  the  part  of  such  corporations  or  ministers.  The 
tendency  of  this  action  is  to  enable  her  to  exercise  an  over- 
whelming influence  throughout  the  diocese." 


25 


I  beg  also  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  testi- 
mony of  Dr.  Anthon,  at  page  109  of  the  first  report. 

Dr.  Anthon  was  an  assistant  Minister  in  Trinity  Church  from 
1S31  to  1836.  The  question  is  propounded  to  him  as  to  the 
effect  which  the  manner  of  making  grants  and  loans,  or  aiding 
churches,  has  upon  freedom  of  speech  and  freedom  of  action 
on  the  part  of  parishes  and  clergymen.  A.  In  my  opinion  the 
effect  is  seriously  to  impair  their  independence. 

Q.  Jn  application  for  aid,  has  Trinity  Church,  in  your  opinion, 
favored  those  whose  party  views  and  actions  were  similar  to  her 
own  ?  A.  Unquestionably.  For  instance,  while  the  applica- 
tion of  St.  Jude's  church  was  pending,  which  was  ultimately 
refused,  it  is  said  grants  were  made  St.  Luke's,  the  Holy  Apos- 
tles, Dr.  Seabury's,  and  others. 

I  beg  also  to  refer  the  committee  to  page  10  of  the  new  re- 
port, and  to  call  their  attention  to  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Haight, 
who  was  sworn  as  a  witness  on  the  part  of  Trinity  Church,  in 
the  proceedings  taken  before  the  committee,  and  who  says  : 

"  In  looking  over  the  list  of  parishes  whose  churches  have  been 
mortgaged  to  Tiinity  Church,  I  find  eight,  the  clergy  and  lay 
delegates  of  which,  for  a  series  of  years,  on  all  leading  questions 
spoke  and  voted  differently  from  the  Rector  and  lay  delegates  of 
Trinity.  Two  of  these  are  mortgaged  for  $25,000,  two  for  $20,000, 
one  for  $5000,  the  other  three  for  smaller  sums.  So,  also,  in 
regard  to  the  churches  which  have  received  grants  of  land  and 
money,  or  annual  stipends.  I  find  nearly  thirty  which  have 
taken  the  same  independent  course  in  convention,  without  regard 
to  the  course  of  Trinity." 

There  are  130  of  that  class  of  churches  alluded  to  by  Dr.  Haight, 
which  have  received  grants  or  stipends  from  Trinity  ;  so  that  out 
of  196  churches,  we  have  38  who  have  dared  to  raise  their  voices 
against  the  iron  power  Trinity  Church  would  have  exercised 
over  them. 

I  also  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  a  newspaper  article 
which  has  been  placed  in  the  hands  of  almost  every  member  of 
the  Senate,  headed  "  Trinity  Church. — Answer  to  the  charges.7 


26 


I  refer  to  that  part  of  the  statement  which  professes  to  give  the 
amounts  that  have  been  appropriated  by  Trinity  Church  to  the 
"High  Churches"  and  "Low  Churches,"  taking  the  twenty 
largest  appropriations  to  the  city  churches  and  the  country 
churches.  In  this  connection,  St.  George's,  St.  Mark's,  Grace 
Church,  Christ  Church,  St.  Michael's,  St.  James',  St.  Andrew's, 
St.  Thomas',  Ascension,  St.  Peter's  and  St.  Bartholomew's  are 
mentioned  as  the  "Low  Churches  "  in  the  city  ;  and  St.  Stephen's, 
Zion,  St.  Clement's.  St.  Luke's,  All  Saints',  St.  Philip's,  Annuncia- 
tion, Nativity,  and  the  Church  of  the  Redeemer,  as  the  "  High 
Churches."  The  gifts  to  "  Low  Churches,"  the  paper  I  hold  in 
my  hand  says,  have  been  $822,000.  To  «  High  Churches  " 
$254,000.  By  which  it  would  appear  that  Trinity  Church  was 
really  doing  more  for  the  "  Low  Church  "  in  the  city  of  New 
York  than  for  the  "  High  Church." 

I  now  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  this  most 
significant  fact;  a  fact  that  stands  out  boldly,  which,  if  we  were 
not  well  acquainted  with  the  nature  and  character  of  the  gifts 
and  grants  of  Trinity,  might  blind  the  eyes  of  the  committee 
to  the  facts  as  they  in  reality  exist.  But  how  is  it  in  truth  ? 
The  gift  to  St.  George's  church  was  made  in  1812.  That  to 
St.  Mark's  in  1795.  That  to  Grace  Church  in  1804  to  1811. 
That  to  Christ  Church  in  1805.  And  following  down  through 
the  several  gifts  and  grants,  we  find  them  nearly  every  one 
made  prior  to  1812.  Since  18  L4,  where  are  the  gifts  and  grants 
made  by  Trinity  to  the  high  and  low  churches  of  the  city  of 
New-York.  The  only  gifts  bestowed  upon  the  low  churches  of 
the  city  since  1814,  are  those  to  St.  Thomas  ($32,000)  in  1827  ; 
to  Ascension  ($15,000)  in  1829  to  1835 ;  and  to  St.  Bartholo- 
mew's in  1839;  making  a  total  of  $71,000  for  all  the  gifts  and 
grants  since  1812,  instead  of  $822,000.  So  when  this  error  is 
corrected,  it  stands  "  gifts  and  grants  to  4 Low  Churches'  since 
1814,  $71,000  and  1  High  Churches'  $254,000,  or  more  than 
double." 

And  while  I  am  speaking  of  the  gifts  and  grants  by  Trinity 
Church  to  the  churches  in  the  city  of  New-York,  I  cannot  re- 
frain from  mentioning  one  case,  that  of  the  Church  of  St.  Mat- 


2? 


thew,  in  the  city  of  New- York,  a  little  church,  with  a  debt  of 
$1300,  who  came  begging,  imploring  and  beseeching  Trinity- 
Church  to  grant  her  aid.  At  that  very  time  Trinity  was  pour- 
ing into  the  treasuries  of  the  high  churches  her  hundreds  and 
thousands  of  dollars  ;  but  she  allowed  St.  Matthew's  to  die,  and 
her  doors  to  be  closed  within  the  very  sight  of  her  own  proud 
spires.  And  no  excuse  is  offered  for  this.  Clergyman  after 
clergyman  is  called  upon  to  give  a  reason  why  St.  Matthew's 
was  thus  treated;  but  none  is  given.  They  say  it  is  a  very 
unpleasant  subject  to  talk  about,  but  we  never  get  at  the 
fact  as  to  what  there  is  so  unpleasant  about  it,  or  why  they 
allowed  her  to  die  at  the  same  time  that  they  were  giving  to 
the  rich  churches  up  town  their  hundreds  and  thousands  of 
dollars.  I  have  heard  it  whispered  that  it  was  because  the 
pastor  of  the  church  was  not  exactly  the  man  to  preside  over  a 
congregation. 

I  should  like  to  know  whether  this  can  be  considered  a  suffi- 
cient reason  why  the  congregation  of  St.  Matthew's  should  see 
their  church  expire  within  the  very  sound  of  the  music  of  the  bells 
of  Trinity.  I  should  like  to  know  whether  this  can  be  a  suffi- 
cient reason  why  Trinity,  with  the  wealth  given  for  aid  of  all 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Churches  in  her  possession,  should 
allow  her  children  to  die  without  stretching  forth  a  helping 
hand.  And  yet  this  corporation  would  tell  us  that  in  the  dis- 
tribution of  the  funds  there  is  no  party  consideration  ! 

Sir,  this  despotism  of  Trinity  Church  does  not  stop  with  the 
churches  of  New-York.  We  have  seen  it  exemplified  here,  so 
plainly  that  he  who  runs  may  read,  that  the  power  of  Trinity 
is  wielded  over  the  entire  church,  and  that  those  in  the  country 
which  have  received  her  aid  are  now  called  upon  to  influence 
the  legislature  in  her  behalf.  Witness  the  flood  of  memorials 
that  have  poured  in  upon  us.  I  ask  what  the  Episcopal 
Churches  outside  of  New-York  can  know  of  this  proceeding ; 
what  can  they  know  of  the  proceedings  here  at  the  Capitol? 
What  alarm  has  been  sent  abroad  to  say  to  them  "  remonstrate 
against  this  law a  law,  the  proposition  of  which  not  one  out 


2S 


of  a  hundred  of  them  can  be  acquainted  with.  I  beg  to  direct 
the  attention  of  the  committee  to  these  remonstrances.  It  will 
be  seen  that  they  all  come  from  one  press,  that  they  are  stereo- 
typed, and  sent  out  by  Trinity  Church  unto  all  the  churches  of 
this  state  who  have  received  aid  from  her,  and  who  are  re- 
quired to  remonstrate,  blindfold,  against  the  passage  of  this 
law.    Here  is  the  memorial : 

To  the  Hon.  the  Senate  and  House  of  Assembly  of  the  State  of  New- York. 

The  Remonstrance  of  the  undersigned  Members  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States,  Inhabitants  of 
Whitestown,  in  the  State  of  New-York,  not  belonging  to  the 
Parish  of  Trinity  Church,  New-York,  respectfully  represents: 

That  your  Memorialists  are  opposed  to  any  repeal,  altera- 
tion, or  modification  by  the  Legislature,  of  an  Act  entitled 
"  An  Act  to  alter  the  name  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church, 
and  for  other  purposes,"  passed  on  the  25th  of  January,  1814. 
They  are  convinced  that  such  action,  by  casting  doubt  upon  the 
exclusive  rights  of  the  present  Corporators  of  Trinity  Church 
to  vote  at  the  elections  for  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of 
that  Parish,  which  they  have  enjoyed  and  exercised,  without 
disturbance,  under  that  Act  for  forty-three  years,  would  destroy 
confidence  in  the  security  of  property.  Your  Remonstrants 
foresee,  moreover,  that  the  direct  effect  of  such  appeal,  modifi- 
cation, or  alteration  would  be  very  injurious  to  the  interests  of 
country  Parishes,  and  would  encourage  litigations  dangerous  to 
the  peace  of  the  religious  community,  of  which  your  Remon- 
strants are  members;  and  that  if  the  parties  promoting  such 
litigations  should  succeed,  the  elections  of  Trinity  Church 
would  become  scenes  of  disorder  and  unseemly  contest  between 
rival  parties  seeking  the  control  and  management  of  her  estate. 
And  your  Remonstrants  will  ever  pray,  &c. 

1  should  like  to  know  who  told  Trinity  Church  that  the 
Senate  in  its  action  sought  to  throw  doubts  on  the  rights  of  her 
corporators;  I  should  like  to  know  where  Trinity  and  her  cor- 
poration can  find  any  provision  in  the  proposed  law  that  can 


29 


cast  doubt  on  the  right  of  her  corporators  ?  Why,  Sir,  this  bill 
seeks  to  make  plain  those  rights.  No  person  here  asks  that 
any  doubts  shall  be  thrown  over  these  rights.  We  ask,  that 
those  who  are  corporators  now  should  still  remain  corporators, 
and  that  they  should  go  a  little  further  and  restore  rights  to 
those  corporators  who  have  been  deprived  of  them.  This  the 
country  churches  do  not  know  anything  about.  There  could 
not  be  found  one  in  opposition  to  the  bill,  if  they  knew  the 
egregious  wrong  suffered  by  those  to  whom  it  seeks  to  do 
justice. 

They  next  say  that  injustice  is  intended  to  country  parishes. 
How  so?  What  injustice?  You  simply  open  the  doors,  and 
allow  those  for  whose  use  the  property  was  set  apart  by  grants 
and  charters,  to  vote  and  have  a  choice  in  the  selections  of  the 
Vestrymen  and  Wardens  who  are  to  administer  that  fund  for  their 
use.  But  they  tell  us  that  the  men  who  apply  here  for  this  law, 
are  proposing  matters  that  must  be  for  the  injury  of  the  country 
churches.  I  can  only  say  that  I  can  point  to  four  of  the  names 
among  the  signatures  on  the  memorial  for  the  bill,  who  have 
given,  and  are  annually  giving  more  to  the  country  churches  than 
Trinity  herself,  with  her  millions  of  property.  And  yet  you  would 
tell  me  that  we  are  injuring  the  country  churches  !  They  say, 
too,  that  the  law  would  encourage  litigation  ;  but  they  do  not  tell 
how.  I  can  hardly  perceive  how  it  would  encourage  litigation  to 
allow  parties  to  vote  who  are  entitled  to  do  so. 

There  is  a  common  error  abroad  in  the  land  that  this  property 
and  Queen's  Farm  are  the  property  of  Trinity  Church.  It  is  the 
most  egregious  error  that  ever  crept  into  the  brain  of  the  most 
credulous  man.  Trinity  Church  never  had  any  right  to  the 
property  as  Trinity  Church.  She  has  not  to  this  day  any  right, 
except  what  she  gets  under  the  law  of  1814.  To  whom  then  does 
the  property  belong?  To  the  corporators.  And  who  are  the  cor- 
porators ?  Why  the  Rector,  Wardens  and  Vestrymen — of  what 
church  ?  Not  of  Trinity  Church  ;  but  the  Rector,  Wardens  and 
Vestrymen  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  by  law  established. 
Trinity  has  simply  the  name  of  the  building  ;  but  the  corporation 
that  took  the  land  as  a  corporation,  had  nothing  whatever  to  do 
with  Trinity  Church  as  a  church. 


30 


I  now  call  attention  to  page  42  of  the  new  report,  which  relates 
to  another  branch  of  this  subject,  as  to  what  Trinity  has  done. 
She  was  called  upon  in  the  original  resolution  of  the  Senate  to 
report  what  she  had  done,  by  the  way  of  endowing  institutions  of 
charity  or  benevolence,  for  her  own  poor.  Well,  it  is  a  remarkable 
fact  that  Trinity  Church — the  most  immense  religious  corporation 
in  existence  within  the  bounds  of  the  State — has  done  nothing  for 
institutions  of  charity  or  benevolence,  even  for  her  own  poor.  This 
point  is  met  by  a  question  propounded  to  the  Rector  of  Trinity, 
who  replies,  "  This  appears  to  me  a  most  remarkable  statement. 
It  has  liberally  and  amply  endowed  Trinity  Charity  School,  which 
lias  been  doing  immeasurable  good  to  her  own  poor,  and  others, 
from  generation  to  generation  ;  and  which,  from  a  munificent 
bequest,  of  which  she  is  just  about  to  come  in  possession,  promises 
to  become  one  of  the  most  important  institutions  in  the  land.  The 
testimony  on  this  point  comes  from  a  quarter  where  it  was  but 
little  to  have  been  expected,  and  is  calculated  to  leave  a  false 
impression  on  the  public  mind.  Neither  Trinity  Parish  nor  Trin- 
ity Corporation  have  been  so  unmindful  of  their  own  poor,  as  the 
report  of  the  committee  would  seem  to  imply." 

In  this  connection,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Rector,  in  order  to 
show  that  the  statement  that  she  has  given  nothing  for  such 
purposes,  cannot  be  true,  gives  evidence  of  the  fact  that  she  has 
endowed  "  Trinity  Charity  School."  I  should  like  to  know 
how  she  has  endowed  that  school  ?  It  is  now  rich,  and  how 
has  it  become  rich  ?  By  Trinity  having  given  it  lots  when  they 
were  hardly  worth  a  song ;  and  now  by  the  natural  rise  and 
growth  of  the  city,  these  lots,  originally  worth  nothing,  have 
made  the  charity  comparatively  wealthy.  But  the  Rev.  Rector, 
in  speaking  of  this  very  subject,  as  to  the  institutions  Trinity 
has  endowed,  says  "she  has  got  her  Dorcas  Societies,  her  In- 
dustrial Schools,  her  Parish  Schools."  Her  schools  are  most 
decidedly  the  richest  specimens  Thinity  Church  has  made  in 
her  "  endowments"  to  institutions,  to  charity  or  benevolence. 
"  She  makes  annual  and  occasional  collections,"  he  further 
says,  "  in  her  parishes." 


31 


Well,  I  would  like  to  know  what  church  does  not  make  these 
annual  collections.  Why,  if  these  are  to  be  called  endowments, 
then  the  little,  humble  church  to  which  I  am  attached,  poor 
and  in  debt  as  she  is,  is  making  endowments.  But  Trinity  em- 
ploys "  lay  agents,"  it  is  said,  "whose  business  it  is  to  give 
needful  assistance  and  counsel  to  the  emigrant,  on  his  arrival  at 
this  port;  to  visit  the  suffering  poor,  and  ascerain  their  fitness 
for  the  bounty  of  the  church,  and  to  search  out  the  ignorant  for 
religious  instruction." 

I  do  not  know  but  that  it  is  meant  to  claim  this  as  an  "  endow- 
ment," because  it  pays  the  men  it  thus  employs  a  salary  of  $1600 
a  year.  Sir.  there  is  not  in  the  annals  of  history,  there  cannot  be 
found  in  history,  any  other  church,  with  such  ample  means,  with 
property  large  enough  to  endow  every  other  church  in  New- York, 
that  does  not  raise  her  hands  in  support  of  her  poor  sister  churches. 
When  asked  for  aid,  her  reply  is  that  she  is  already  in  debt  six 
hundred  thousand  dollars.  She  owes  this  large  sum,  and  cannot 
give  anything  away.  She  would  like  to  give,  but  is  not  able.  Oh, 
no !  When  the  churches  of  the  city  call  upon  her  for  aid,  it  is  a 
very  easy  matter  for  her  to  say  "  we  can't  give,  because  our  debt 
is  $600,000,  and  that  makes  us  poor,"  but  she  does  not  stop  long 
enough  to  tell  us  how  that  debt  was  incurred.  She  does  not  tell 
us  that  churches  in  the  city  of  New- York — wealthy  churches — 
have  received  from  her  hands,  from  time  to  time,  those  immense 
sums  of  money  which  have  taken  from  her  treasury  all  she  has, 
and  that  therefore  she  has  incurred  this  debt. 

I  may  say,  and  I  do  say  here,  in  justice  to  some  of  the  vestry- 
men of  the  church,  that  while  some  have  favored  the  erection  of 
those  magnificent  temples,  others  have  persistently  resisted  such 
a  policy;  but  in  vain.  They  have  brought  in  their  estimates  and 
bills  of  $60,000;  and  when  the  structures  have  been  built,  they 
have  cost  $260,000  or  $270,000. 

Sir,  Trinity  can,  when  it  is  to  gratify  those  upon  whom  she  can 
rely  for  support  and  increased  strength,  put  her  hand  into  her 
pocket,  and  with  a  princely  liberality  help  to  raise  up  magnifi- 
cent and  costly  temples,  carved  and  sculptured  as  by  an  Angel's 
hand;  but  when  a  cry  of  help  comes  from  those  from  whom  she 


32 


can  expect  no  power,  her  reply  is,  "  we  should  love  to  give,  but 
our  debt  will  not  allow  us." 

And  how  is  it  with  regard  to  the  interest  of  that  debt  7  How  is 
the  management  of  the  fund  carried  on  to-day  ?  Sir,  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  if  not  shielded  be- 
neath the  garb  of  a  religious  society,  would  every  one  be  sent  to 
a  mad-house.  With  a  debt  of  $600,000,  and  with  their  whole 
vast  property  yielding  thern  less  than  $100,000  a  year !  They 
say  it  is  out  on  long  leases.  This  is  not  true,  as  a  matter  of  fact. 
Half  of  these  long  leases  have  already  expired.  They  have  three 
millions  of  dollars  worth  of  property,  which  at  7  per  cent,  would 
yield  them  $210,000.  But  they  prefer  to  keep  their  real  estate — 
and  when  I  say  they,  I  speak  of  the  standing  committee  who  re- 
present Trinity  Church  in  the  green  rooms  of  the  councils,  and 
who  use  the  funds,  not  for  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  origi- 
nally designed,  but  to  keep  them  fast,  increasing  and  swelling  up 
in  their  hands.  Her  policy  now  is  not  the  same  as  it  was  prior  to 
1814.  She  holds  her  lands  now,  and  builds  magnificent  churches, 
and  lays  out  immense  sums  upon  them,  and  when  the  poor 
churches  come  to  beg  of  her,  she  has  not  a  dollar  for  them. 

And  yet  they  tell  us,  with  this  immense  amount  of  property  in 
their  hands,  that  this  is  good  management  !  I  wonder  if  the  125 
corporators  of  the  church  understand  what  the  management  of 
this  fund  by  the  corporation  really  is  ?  I  wonder  whether  they 
know  what  these  vestrymen  and  wardens  are  doing?  No,  sir. 
Not  a  word  ever  reaches  them.  No  report  is  ever  given  to  the 
corporators.  The  wardens  and  vestrymen  are  placed  there  only 
as  trustees,  and  yet  they  never  account  for  the  management  of  the 
fund  to  those  for  whose  benefit  it  was  orignally  given. 

Mr.  Chairman,  these  remarks  which  I  make  about  this  corpora- 
tion, do  not  affect  Trinity  Church  nor  her  parishes  and  her  clergy. 
It  is  one  thing  when  I  say  Trinity  Church  and  her  parishes,  and 
another  when  I  say  "this  corporation."  When  I  come  to  speak 
of  Trinity  Church  and  her  clergy,  I  can  speak  of  the  good  they 
are  doing  in  the  city  of  New-York ;  for  there  can  be  no  question 
that  they  are  doing  great  good  in  the  cause  of  religion,  and  taking 
care  of  their  poor,  as  other  churches  do.  But  when  I  speak  of 
the  corporation,  I  speak  of  it  distinct  from  the  clergy,  for  they 


33 


know  nothing  about  its  affairs.  There  is  not  one  assistant  minis- 
ter who  has  any  knowledge  of  the  affairs  of  the  corporation. 

Sir:  This  corporation  deserves  great  credit  for  some  things, 
and  I  am  willing  to  give  her  all  that  of  right  belongs  to  her. 
She  has  erected  Trinity  Church  at  the  head  of  Wall-street, 
looking  down  upon  the  great  money  depot  of  that  wealthy  city, 
with  her  lofty  spire  piercing  the  sky,  and  her  merry  bells  ring- 
ing out  their  music  in  the  ears  of  all,  and  giving  a  pleasant 
invitation  to  the  rich  and  poor  who  love  to  sit  beneath  her  sanc- 
tuary. For  all  this — for  the  other  magnificent  edifices  she  has 
built  up  in  the  city  of  New-York — for  founding  her  sewing 
societies  and  her  industrial  schools,  she  doubtless  deserves  high 
credit.  But  I  might  stop  here  and  ask  whether,  while  she  has 
done  all  this,  she  has  not  a  little  overdone  it,  by  fitting  and 
furnishing  some  of  the  churches  in  a  style  of  splendor  and 
magnificence  almost  forbidding  to  the  humble  christian  wander- 
er who  seeks  to  enter  her  doors.  Her  velvet  cushions,  her 
crimson  draperies,  and  all  her  gorgeous  embellishments  may 
well  attract  the  rich  and  luxurious,  but  the  poor  rarely  seek 
these  magnificent  structures  erected  by  Trinity  Church,  to  hear 
the  word  of  God  from  the  minister's  lips. 

We  have  heard  on  several  occasions  within  the  last  few  years, 
in  the  Senate  halls,  the  voice  of  warning  as  to  the  power  which 
the  Papal  church  exercises  over  the  minds  of  men.  We  have 
been  continually  reminded  of  the  dangerous  power  which  that 
church  wields  over  the  will  and  action  of  its  communicants. 
We  are  reminded,  too,  from  time  to  time,  that  there  are  power- 
ful corporations  in  the  State  of  New-York,  which  exercise  an 
undue  control  over  the  powers  that  be,  in  the  state  government. 
The  note  of  alarm  is  constantly  sounded  on  this  key.  But  I 
ask,  Sir,  is  there  any  power  now  existing,  or  that  ever  did 
exist  in  the  State  of  New-York,  stronger,  and  bolder,  and  more 
defiant  than  this  corporation?  A  power  that  starting  first  in 
the  city  of  New-York,  and  which,  when  the  Senate  pass  resolu- 
tions affecting  it,  defies  the  Legislature  of  the  State  and  proudly 
says,  "you  have  no  right  to  call  upon  me  for  information."  A 
3 


power  that,  when  the  committee  under  the  authority  of  the 
Senate  seek  to  discharge  their  duty,  and  to  take  testimony  as 
to  the  affairs  of  Trinity,  would  crush  out  that  committee,  and 
hold  it  up  to  the  scorn  of  the  people  of  the  State  of  New- York. 
A  power  that  is  not  content  with  the  attempt  to  extend  its  influ- 
ence over  the  committee,  but  creeps  slowly  and  stealthily  into 
the  Legislature,  defies  the  State  herself  and  declares  that  it 
holds  grants  from  the  British  crown,  which  are  over  and  above 
all  laws  of  the  State  of  New- York. 

But  I  ask  the  Senate  to  remember  that  this  power  is,  after  all, 
but  the  power  of  a  grasping  corporation.  Although  she  has  be- 
hind her  the  proud  spire  of  Trinity  church,  yet  I  know  not  why 
she  should  have  any  more  rights  or  authority  here  than  a  bank 
corporation,  an  insurance  corporation,  or  a  railroad  corporation. 

Sir,  this  power  rules  also  the  Convention  of  her  diocese.  She 
does  not  stop  at  ruling  in  the  city  and  at  the  Capital  of  the  State, 
but  she  rules  and  controls  by  her  own  will  the  members  of  the 
Convention  of  the  Diocese.  And  what  is  probably  more  to  be 
regretted  than  aught  else,  she  controls  her  Bishop.  The  Head  of 
the  church  is  called  to  her  aid,  and  puts  forth  his  power  in  order 
to  defeat  all,  except  those  who  bow  and  cringe  to  the  despotic 
power  of  this  overbearing  corporation.  But  not  only  does  she 
exercise  this  in  the  diocese  in  which  she  exists,  and  where  her 
business  is  carried  on,  but  she  goes  into  another  diocese,  and  drags 
into  her  meshes  another  Bishop.  And  yet  we  are  told  that  Trinity 
Church  knows  no  party,  and  has  no  ambition  ! 

I  have  already  said  that  this  power  rules  the  country  church. 
Yesterday  morning,  more  by  way  of  curiosity  than  from  any 
other  feeling,  I  took  up  the  list  of  remonstrances,  to  see  who  it 
was  from  the  country  that  was  pressing  these  memorials  regard- 
ing the  amendment  of  the  law  of  1814.  I  find  that  of  tl.e 
churches  memorializing  the  Senate,  there  are  in  all  41.  Of  these, 
5  are  Low  and  36  are  High  churches. 

But  however  cruel,  cold  and  merciless  Trinity  Church  may 
be  in  the  use  of  the  fund  placed  in  her  hands  to  aid  the  cause 
of  religion ;  however  much  the  interests  of  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church  of  the  city  of  New-York  may  suffer  from  her  policy, 


35 

I  would  invoke  here  no  feeling  against  her.  I  desire  the  cool, 
calm,  deliberate  judgment  of  the  Senate  on  the  matters  before 
it.  I  ask  for  no  excitement  of  feeling.  Let  us  lay  aside  all 
prejudices  on  either  side,  and  meet  this  question  as  we  meet  all 
other  questions,  unbiassed  and  uncontrolled  by  any  influences 
that  may  seek  to  reach  us  under  the  garb  of  religion.  Let  us 
meet  it  with  judgments  clear,  and  with  minds  accurately  fixed 
on  the  true  matters  in  dispute  between  the  corporation  as  it 
now  exists,  and  the  corporators  whose  rights  were  stripped 
from  them  by  the  law  whose  injustice  we  seek  now  to  redress. 
I  ask  not  that  the  bill  introduced  here  may  be  supported  by 
any  member  of  the  Senate,  unless  he  shall  be  satisfied  that  its 
provisions  are  just.  I  ask  not  for  legislative  action  against  this 
corporation  unless  those  who  were  originally  corporators  under 
the  grant  of  1697  and  the  laws  of  1784  and  1788,  are  entitled 
to  rights  of  which  they  have  been  improperly  deprived.  But 
if  they  have  any  vested  rights  under  that  original  grant  and  the 
subsequent  laws,  then  I  say  that  the  Legislature  of  the  State 
of  New-York  is  bound  to  protect  those  vested  rights  wrested 
from  them  by  the  act  of  1S14. 

Sir,  I  speak  not  for  the  living  only,  but  for  those  who  are  yet 
to  come,  for  they  also  are  injured  by  the  law.  It  was  not  for 
the  inhabitants  of  New  York,  in  communion  of  the  church  of 
England  in  1G97  only,  but  for  those  inhabiting  and  to  inhabit 
the  city,  that  the  grant  was  made.  It  was  to  them  and  not  to 
Trinity  Church  that  the  property  was  given  ;  she  was  simply 
trustee  —  nothing  more. 

Now  as  to  the  question  whether  or  not  she  has  administered 
the  funds  wisely.  If  she  had  given  to  the  poor  churches  as 
she  should  have  given  ;  if  the  fund  had  been  distributed  for 
the  good  of  the  church  and  of  the  people,  then  I  grant  there 
might  be  some  ground  for  saying  there  should  be  no  amend- 
ment to  the  law  of  1814.  But  if  it  is  clear  that  prior  to  1814 
there  was  such  trust,  and  that  the  property  thus  held  for  the 
benefit  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York  is  now  im- 
properly managed  and  unfairly  appropriated;  then  it  is  not  a  duty 


36 


we  owe  to  those  now  upon  the  stage  of  life,  and  to  all  who 
are  to  come  after  them,  to  reform  these  evils,  and  to  rescue 
from  Trinity  Church  and  her  corporation  the  rights  of  these 
parties  so  long  divested  from  them. 

Sir,  the  assertion  is  made  that  the  original  corporators  have 
enjoyed  these  wrongs  so  long,  that  they  begin  to  ripen  into 
rights !  That  the  wrongs  to  these  beneficiaries  having  been  suffer- 
ed to  quietly  exist  for  forty  long  years,  they  ought  not  now  to 
ask  for  their  removal.  I  answer,  that  if  there  is  a  right  exist- 
ing— if  these  people  were  the  original  corporators — if  the  pro- 
perty was  granted  to  their  use — then  there  is  no  power  in  the 
legislature  of  the  State  of  New-York  which  can  divest  them  of 
those  rights  or  deprive  them  of  that  property.  I  repeat,  that 
if  the  original  corporators  had  rights  under  the  original  grant, 
no  law  that  the  State  of  New-York  can  pass  can  take  awTay 
those  rights.    They  remain  secure  and  inviolable  for  ever. 

Mr.  Chairman :  I  have  already  occupied  the  attention  of  the 
committee  for  too  long  a  time ;  but  I  deemed  it  necessary  after 
examining  the  testimony,  to  briefly  call  the  attention  of  Sena- 
tors to  matters  which  came  up  before  the  committee,  because 
I  know  it  is  impossible — voluminous  as  that  testimony  is — in 
the  press  of  other  business  to  read  one-half  of  it.  I  again  call 
upon  Senators  to  enter  upon  the  investigation  of  this  matter 
without  passion  or  feeling;  to  exercise  their  best  judgment  in 
deliberating  upon  it ;  and  if,  in  their  opinion,  the  law  of  1S14 
did  deprive  these  men  of  any  of  their  rights,  then  I  ask  them 
to  place  the  original  corporators  in  the  same  position  they 
occupied  prior  to  the  law  of  1S14.  There  is  to  be  no  over- 
turning of  Trinity  Church,  as  has  been  represented  in  the 
country,  and  at  this  Capitol.  The  same  men  who  are  corpora- 
tors now,  will  remain  corporators  still.  The  only  amendment 
offered,  and  the  object  of  the  bill,  is  to  restore  to  the  original 
corporators  the  rights  they  enjoyed  from  the  year  1697  up  to 
the  year  1S14. 

Mr.  Wadsworth  commenced  his  reply,  but  had  not  proceeded 
far,  when  interrupted  by  the  hour  of  adjournment. 


37 


IN  SENATE,  March  28. 
At  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Wads  worth's  remarks,  Mr.  Brooks 
said  : 

Mr.  Chairman  :  I  do  not  propose  at  this  time  to  go  into  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  bill  now  under  consideration,  but  shall  content  my- 
self with  now  offering  a  substitute,  reserving  to  myself  the  right 
at  some  future  day  to  occupy  as  brief  time  as  possible  in  examin- 
ing the  merits  of  this  bill  offered  by  the  Special  Committee. 

The  substitute  was  read  ;  and  Mr.  Noxon,  in  reply  to  Mr. 
Wads  worth,  said  : 

Mr.  Chaiiman  :  Inasmuch  as  the  substitute  offered  by  the  Sena- 
tor from  the  6th  does,  in  effect,  remedy  in  some  degree  what  is 
claimed  to  be  one  of  the  greatest  wrongs  ever  perpetrated  on  per- 
sonal rights,  I  do  not  know  but  that  it  will  be  acceptable  to  those 
parties  in  New-York  who  have  been  injured  by  the  act  of  1814. 
If  I  understand  the  purpose  of  the  substitute,  it  is  that  Trinity 
Church  shall  annually  elect  ten  Vestrymen  and  one  Church 
Warden,  and  that  ten  Vestrymen  and  one  Church  Warden  shall 
be  elected  in  the  other  parishes  in  New- York,  and  that  these  Ves- 
trymen and  Wardens  thus  elected  shall  have  the  care  of  this  great 
fund. 

I  care  not,  Mr.  Chairman,  how  the  object  is  attained.  I  have 
no  desire  to  press  upon  the  Senate  the  particular  bill  reported  by 
the  committee.  I  only  wish  that  the  rights  of  the  original  corpo- 
rators, taken  from  them  by  the  law  of  1814,  shall  be  restored  to 
them. 

The  Senator  from  the  31st  has  seen  fit  to  say  that  I  have  only 
touched  the  threshold  of  the  legal  questions  involved  in  this  dis- 
cussion. Sir,  I  call  the  attention  of  the  Hon.  Senator  to  the  fact 
that  he  has  only  to  read  the  charter  and  the  subsequent  laws  to 
discover  his  error.  The  charter  tells  the  Hon.  Senator  that  this 
property  in  New- York,  granted  in  1697,  was  granted  to  the  use, 
of  whom  ?— of  Trinity  Church  ?  Oh,  no  !  but  as  the  charter  says 
(and  there  is  no  mistaking  its  language),  those  inhabiting,  and  to 
inhabit,  the  city  of  New- York  in  communion  of  the  Church  of 
England..  Now  I  lay  down  the  proposition  that  the  language  of 
the  charter  cannot  possibly  bear  any  other  construction  than  that 
I  have  put  upon  it,  and  that  it  settles  of  itself  all  questions  of  law  ; 


38 


and  when  I  call  the  attention  of  my  honorable  friend  to  the 
charter — to  the  plain  declaration  on  its  face — it  is  for  him  to  answer 
if  he  has  got  any  law  to  disprove  it.  It  is  not  for  me  to  produce 
law  for  that  which  on  its  face  must  directly  carry  conviction  to 
every  man. 

But  it  does  not  stop  at  saying  to  whose  use  the  property  is 
dedicated  ;  hut  goes  on  to  describe  the  persons  who  shall  vote 
for  wardens  and  vestrymen. 

If  I  understand  the  charter,  and  law  of  1704,  it  is  provided 
that  there  shall  be  annually  elected  two  wardens  and  twenty 
vestrymen,  and  that  those  who  vote  for  them  shall  be  inhabit- 
ants of — what  ? — not  of  the  parishes  of  Trinity  or  her  chapels, 
but  of  the  city  of  New-York,  who  shall  be  communicants  of  the 
Church  of  England.  The  subsequent  act  of  1784  says,  "  in  com- 
munion of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church."  Now  I  ask  the 
Hon.  Senator  in  view  of  the  grant,  which  is  too  plain  to  ques- 
tion, how  he  can  say  that  I  have  only  touched  the  threshold  of 
the  legal  question  ? 

Mr.  Wadsworth  : 

Will  the  Senator  allow  me  one  moment  ?  I  desire  to  direct 
his  attention  to  the  fact  that  this  was  a  charter  to  build  the  first 
church  and  the  first  steeple  in  the  city  of  New-York. 

It  first  makes  reference  to  the  minister.  Secondly  it  alludes 
to  the  building  of  the  church,  and  laying  the  foundation  of  the 
steeple.  Thirdly  follows  the  royal  grant  of  a  certain  church 
and  steeple,  with  ground  adjoining,  &c.  It  then  goes  on  with 
respect  to  expenses.  A  little  lower  down  it  speaks  of  the 
"  aforesaid  church."  Lower  still,  of  the  Rector  of  the  aforesaid 
church  ;  making  it  clear  that  when  it  speaks  of  the  inhabitants  of 
New- York  in  communion  of  our  aforesaid  church  of  England,  it 
alludes  to  that  single  church  to  which  the  charter  throughout 
has  reference.  It  is  in  view  of  these  facts  that  I  think  it  would 
be  well  for  the  Honorable  Senator  not  to  jump  so  eagerly  to 
the  9th  page  of  the  charter,  but  commence  at  the  beginning, 
and  he  will  then  find  that  the  words  "  in  communion  of  our 


39 


aforesaid  church,"  allude  to  Trinity  Church  alone,  as  it  alludes 
to  one  Rector  and  to  one  parish. 

Mr.  Noxon  : 

1  am  very  willing  to  be  called  out  on  that  branch  of  the  charter, 
because  I  have  given  great  attention  to  it,  and  I  think  if  the  Hon. 
Senator  had  taken  the  same  pains  to  understand  it  that  I  have,  he 
would  find  that  the  first  pages  of  the  charter  have  no  reference  to 
the  grant.  The  church  was  already  built.  The  preamble  recites 
what  had  been  done.  A  minister  had  been  sent  into  the  country 
"  for  the  cure  of  souls."  After  a  time  this  church  was  erected,  and 
after  that,  the  then  Governor  of  New- York,  who  had  interested  him- 
self much  in  the  church,  petitioned  for  the  grant.  Then  comes 
the  preamble  in  the  charter,  providing  for  a  Protestant  minister. 
There  was  in  1693  no  minister  in  New- York  ;  but  in  1697  there 
was.  A  little  further  on  it  recites  the  petition  and  then  goes  on 
to  state  the  inducements  for  the  charter.  The  grant  itself  is  en- 
tirely distinct  from  this  preamble.  I  tell  the  Hon.  Senator  that  I 
have  commenced  at  the  starting  point,  and  perfectly  well  under- 
stand what  that  grant  is. 

Mr.  Wadsworth  : 

If  the  Senator  looks  at  page  11,  he  will  find  what  the  grant  is. 

Mr.  Noxon  : 

My  attention  is  called  to  page  11.  I  must  say  that  the  Hon. 
Senator  is  wrong  again.  The  allusion  at  that  page  is  to  the 
furnishing,  not  to  the  erecting  of  the  church. 

Mr.  Wadsworth  : 

I  was  not  wrong  before.  The  church  was  in  process  of  erec- 
tion. 

Mr.  Noxon  : 

No  Sir,  it  was  finished.  But  the  charter  goes  on  to  say  what 
the  name  of  the  church  is.  Then  comes  the  next  question  as  to 
who  was  entitled  to  vote  for  wardens  and  vestrymen.  The  Hon. 
Senator  says  I  do  not  go  into  the  legal  argument.  Sir,  I  present 
facts — I  present  the  grant,  which  says  that  the  inhabitants  of  the 
city  of  New  York  of  that  faith  shall  vote. 


40 


The  Hon.  Senator,  in  his  opening  remarks,  has  said  it  is  sought 
by  the  advocates  of  this  bill  to  accuse  Trinity  of  certain  crimes. 
I  can  only  say  the  charge  is  not  the  proof.  The  fact  is,  this  belief 
has  grown  up  in  the  mind  of  my  honorable  friend,  and  is  without 
foundation.  The  idea  that  they  whose  rights  have  been  taken 
away  by  the  law  of  1814,  and  who  desire  that  they  shall  be  re- 
stored, would  tear  away  the  graves  of  Trinity,  is  simply  ridiculous. 
There  is  no  evidence  on  the  point.  But  the  Hon.  Senator  says 
that  it  is  charged  as  a  great  crime  against  Trinity  that  she  would 
preserve  those  graves.  He  also  says  that  it  is  charged  as  a  crime 
against  Trinity  that  she  will  not  sell  St.  John's  Park.  I  say  that 
it  was  part  of  the  original  agreement  that  the  park  was  to  be  sold  ; 
and  yet  the  Hon.  Senator  says  that  the  church  merely  fixed  a 
price  in  order  not  to  sell  it. 

I  was  a  little  astonished,  Sir,  to  hear  the  Hon.  Senator  assert 
that  it  was  charged  as  a  crime  against  Trinity  that  she  rebuilt 
her  church.  I  said  distinctly  that  it  was  an  ornament  and  honor 
to  New- York  to  place  the  church  there  at  that  point.  Not  that  I 
think  there  is  any  necessity  to  have  it  at  the  top  of  the  money 
depot  of  the  city;  for  they  are  not  the  men  who  attend  Trinity 
church,  who  hover  about  their  money  boxes  in  Wall-street.  Who 
are  they,  then,  that  attend  the  church  ?  The  poor,  in  the  lower 
part  of  the  city.  The  rich  inhabitants  of  Wall-street  attend  the 
church  edifices  in  the  upper  part  of  the  city.  But  the  Hon.  Sena- 
tor says  the  objection  to  the  building  of  churches  was  because  it 
was  desired  to  divide  up  the  property.  Who  proposes  any  such 
thing  ?  Does  the  bill  propose  it  ?  Does  the  amendment  propose 
it?  No  such  thing.  There  is  no  such  proposition  except  in  the 
imagination  of  those  who  suggest  it. 

Now  how  is  this  great  fund  managed,  that  was  to  benefit  all 
the  original  corporators  ?  By  one  hundred  and  twenty-five 
men.  They  are  all  that  control  the  fund  that  was  designed  for 
the  benefit  of  all  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  residing  in  the  city  of  New-York.  And  in  what  manner 
are  their  elections  managed  ? 

I  call  attention  to  the  files,  where  the  fact  is  shown  that  for 
years  less  than  thirty  men  have  elected  the  vestry. 


41 


Mr.  Wadsworth  : 

1  have  made  the  statement,  and  I  repeat  it,  that  any  person 
who  is  a  communicant  of  that  church  is  entitled  to  be  a  corpora- 
tor. Any  Episcopalian  may  join  the  parish  and  become  a  com- 
municant if  he  please,  and  there  is  not  an  instance  on  record  of 
a  single  communicant  being  refused  his  vote. 

Mr.  Noxon  : 

I  think  there  will  be  no  difficulty  in  harmonizing  the  views 
of  the  Hon.  Senator  and  myself.  The  pewholders  of  the  church 
are  protected.  The  act  of  1314  protects  them.  I  only  make 
the  statement  that  this  fund  is  controlled  by  125  men,  instead 
of  by  the  thousands  of  corporators  who  are  dispossessed  by  the 
law  of  1814;  and  that  less  than  thirty  corporators  elect  these 
Vestrymen  who  have  endeavored  to  break  down  the  committee 
in  order  to  overrule  and  override  the  Senate  of  the  State  of 
New-York. 

I  might  stop  here  and  ask  one  single  question — why  is  it  there 
is  such  avidity,  such  greediness  on  the  part  of  the  Yestry  to  hold 
on  to  the  power  lodged  in  their  hands  by  the  law  of  1814?  The 
Hon.  Senator  from  the  Thirty-first  asks  if  Mr.  Dix  and  Mr.  Yer- 
planck  are  to  be  impeached  on  this  floor?  No  impeachment  is 
brought  against  them.  The  charge  is  not  that  the  fund  is  con- 
trolled by  them.  Indeed,  they  have  resisted  from  time  to  time  in 
the  vestry  the  acts  of  the  standing  committee.  But  the  charge  is, 
that  others  hold  on  to  and  administer  the  funds;  and  why  is  it 
they  so  pertinaciously  hold  on  to  the  church  property  and  lease  it 
out  from  year  to  year?  Probably  on  account  of  some  considera- 
tion not  yet  brought  before  the  Senate.  1  surmise  that  in  these 
same  leases  there  is  something  that  does  not  meet  the  eye.  That 
some  friend  stands  behind,  in  the  back-ground  ;  some  son,  or 
father,  or  brother  occupying  this  property,  and  making  a  profitable 
thing  out  of  these  leases.  I  ask,  what  is  it  that  should  induce 
them  to  hold  on  to  this  property,  unless  there  is  something  that  the 
public  cannot  see  ? 

4 


42 


Mr.  Wadsworth  : 

Will  the  gentleman  state  the  name  of  the  vestrymen  he  thus 
publicly  impeaches  ? 

Mr.  Noxon  : 

I  impeach  and  charge  no  man.  I  surmise  these  things — that  is 
all.  But  can  the  gentleman  inform  us  why  it  is  that  they  thus 
hold  on  to  this  power  to  lease  this  property  on  long  leases  ? 

Mr.  Wadsworth  : 

We  can  read  that  in  the  evidence. 

Mr.  Noxon  : 

The  gentleman  asks,  if  these  original  corporators  are  allowed  to 
come  in,  would  the  ministers  now  at  Trinity's  altars  be  permitted 
to  remain?  I  answer  certainly  they  would,  if  they  do  their  duty; 
but  if  not,  they  would  be  removed,  as  they  ought  to  be.  Is  there 
no  faith  to  be  placed  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  outside 
of  Trinity?  Is  all  a  mob  beyond  her  parishes?  Does  the  Sena- 
tor tell  me  that  the  Protestant  Church  has  fallen  so  low  that  her 
elections  must  be  like  the  elections  of  the  sixth  ward,  and  that  her 
voters  must  be  dragged  to  the  polls  with  bloody  noses,  by  the  force 
of  cudgels?  I  do  not  believe  that  the  Senator  will  make  any  such 
impeachment  of  the  honorable  gentlemen  who  are  here  petitioning 
for  this  law. 

Again,  the  Hon.  Senator  has  said  that  I  charged  upon  Trinity 
that  she  has  done  nothing  for  the  cause  of  education.  I  do  not 
think  I  made  any  such  charge.  I  did  certainly  speak  of  what 
Trinity  has  done  in  the  way  of  charity  for  her  own  poor.  But 
when  the  gentleman  mentions  her  gift  to  Columbia  College,  I 
would  remind  him  that  she  has  given  nothing  to  that  college  since 
1812.  I  do  not  deny  that  Trinity  does  much  both  for  the  city 
and  country;  but  while  I  admit  she  does  much,  I  do  complain  that 
she  does  not  do  half  enough.  While  she  is  enrichihg  herself  by 
holding  on  to  her  property,  she  does  not  give  away  half  enough. 
It  cannot  be  that  the  men  who  come  here  and  desire  to  have  their 
rights  secured,  are  against  the  country;  for  they  desire  to  increase 
the  gifts,  and  consequently  the  usefulness  of  Trinity.    My  honor- 


43 

able  friend  says  he  is  not  an  Episcopalian  nor  the  son  of  an 
Episcopalian.  I  trust  that,  being  the  son  of  an  Episcopalian,  I 
can  speak  more  confidently  than  himself  on  this  point.  I  know 
the  character  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church ;  and  I  should 
be  the  last  Senator  on  this  floor  to  state  that  Trinity  has  not  done 
much  in  every  department  of  religion  for  the  good  of  the  church. 

She  has  given  to  churches  in  New-York  ;  but  the  complaint 
is  that  she  has  given  only  feebly.  She  has  only  taken  from  her 
fund  grudgingly,  when  she  might  have  bestowed  liberally. 

But  the  question  is  not  what  Trinity  gives  or  withholds.  The 
question  lies  back  of  all  that ;  because,  if  the  persons  who 
claim  to  have  been  wronged  by  the  act  of  1814,  really  have 
rights  and  powers  under  the  original  charter,  no  powers  in  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  can  deprive  them  thereof.  I  think 
that  the  question  I  started  with  must  be  met,  and  met  fairly. 
To  whom  does  this  property  belong  ?  Does  it  belong  to  Trini- 
ty as  a  close  corporation,  sealed  from  the  eyes  of  the  corpora- 
tors, or  does  it  belong  to  the  corporators  themselves?  If  it 
does  belong  to  them,  then  again  I  say  no  power  in  this  Legisla- 
ture can  take  it  from  them.  Though  the  country  should  pour 
in  her  petitions  by  the  basket  full,  are  we  to  suffer  such  con- 
siderations to  control  us?  Have  we  not  the  right  to  say  that 
these  beneficiaries  in  the  original  grant  shall  not  be  deposed, 
even  if  the  restoration  of  their  rights  should  tend  to  dethrone 
the  present  Vestry  of  the  church. 

My  honorable  friend,  in  the  couse  of  his  remarks,  has  de- 
clared that  consecrated  justice  is  on  the  side  of  Trinity.  Where 
can  it  be  found  ?  In  her  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  corpora- 
tors, who  have  wrested  from  the  other  corporators  their  just 
rights?  Tell  me  not  of  consecrated  justice  from  those  who  are 
steeped  in  wrong — Trinity  Church  never  had  any  right  in  the 
property  she  unjustly  holds.  Where  is  the  grant  giving  her 
such  right? 

Mr.  Wadsworth  : 

It  is  in  the  charter.    The  charter  gives  her  that  right. 


44 


Mr.  Noxon: 

No,  it  does  not.  It  gives  it  to  the  corporators,  not  to  the 
church.  The  church  usurps  it,  and  yet  the  Senator  talks  about 
its  consecrated  justice.  Consecrated  justice  !  Why,  I  wonder 
that  the  embellishments  that  surround  her  churches  do  not  cry 
out  in  judgment  against  her.  Consecrated  justice,  in  usurpa- 
tion !  Consecrated  justice,  in  daring  wrong!  Consecrated 
justice,  in  robbing  men  of  their  rights  ! 

Mr.  Wadsworth: 

Why  did  not  these  men  exercise  their  rights,  if  they  ever 
possessed  them  ! 

Mr.  Noxon  : 

The  Hon.  Senator  asks  why  they  did  not  exercise  their  rights. 
Suppose  any  special  right  should  be  granted  to  him  ;  the  non- 
exercise  of  it  would  not  invalidate  it.  There  are  rights  of 
which  no  refusal  to  exercise  can  deprive  men;  the  right  of  suf- 
frage, for  instance.  Does  not  that  right  remain  with  a  man,  let 
him  exercise  it  or  not,  until  he  goes  down  to  the  grave  ?  I  ask 
the  Senator  from  the  31st  if  it  would  not  be  a  bold  proposition, 
should  a  man  not  exercise  his  right  to  vote  for  40  years,  to 
refuse  his  ballot  when  at  last  he  came  to  offer  it  at  the  polls  ? 
And  so  of  every  other  right,  the  exercise  of  which  is  voluntary 
and  not  compulsory.  My  Hon.  friend  has  seen  fit  to  liken  these 
original  corporators  who  came  here  asking  for  this  bill,  to  a 
person  who  should  go  into  the  Astor  House  and  insist  upon 
entering  into  a  partnership  in  the  property  with  its  owner.  Sir, 
I  would  ask  him  here,  whether  Mr.  Astor  would  forfeit  the 
rights  he  possesses  in  that  property  unless  he  should  every  day, 
or  every  week,  or  every  month,  come  and  stand  around  the  bar- 
room and  claim  his  rights  ?  These  men  ask  but  the  renewal  of 
an  original  partnership,  from  which  they  never  were  dissolved 
except  by  an  unconstitutional  law. 

Mr.  Wadsworth  : 
If  the  Hon.  Senator  will  allow  me,  I  will  ask  him  why,  if  this. 


45 


great  wrong  is  really  done  to  any  corporator,  be  does  not  offer  his 
vote  at  the  annual  election  ;  and  when  his  ballot  is  refused,  apply 
at  once  for  a  mandamus  and  seek  his  remedy  in  the  courts? 
Why  have  these  men  been  thus  wronged  for  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years,  when  the  courts  are  ever  open,  and  Judges  sit  ever 
ready  to  protect  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  people? 

Mr.  Noxon  : 

I  will  tell  the  Senator  why.  If  the  case  was  the  case  of  a 
single  individual  there  would  be  no  difficulty  about  it.  But  it  is 
not,  and  there  are  too  many  interested  to  make  it  practicable  or 
advisable  to  go  to  the  courts.  Why,  it  would  be  the  delight  of 
Trinity  if  eight  thousand  persons  should  each  come  into  the  courts, 
for  Trinity  Church  would  enjoy  the  protracted  law  suits  till  the 
suitors  all  went  down  into  the  grave.  I  say  it  is  the  right  and  duty 
of  the  Senate  to  interpose  and  protect  the  people  of  the  State  of 
New-York  from  a  litigation  involving  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
dollars.  The  idea  has  long  since  been  proposed  by  Trinity,  that 
these  questions  should  be  tested  by  the  courts  of  law,  in  order 
that  she  might  string  an  interminable  law  suit  along  for  years  ; 
but  as  soon  as  the  injured  persons  come  here  for  the  redress  that 
is  their  right,  the  cry  of  the  church  is  that  "  it  will  produce  liti- 
gation." It  is  the  solemn  duty  of  the  legislature  to  repeal  at  once 
all  laws  which  are  clearly  unconstitutional,  without  waiting  the 
tardy  step  of  the  courts. 

The  Senator  from  the  31st  says  that  he  trembles  for  the 
church  and  for  the  country  if  this  bill  should  be  enacted.  Sir, 
I  tremble  for  both,  if  this  power,  thus  consecrated  to  injustice, 
is  to  rule  the  State  of  New-York  and  her  counsels,  if  this  corpo- 
ration, created  by  the  law  of  1814,  is  to  mould  the  Legislature, 
as  she  does  the  church,  to  her  will.  The  manner  in  which  she 
exercises  and  wields  the  power  she  does  possees,  is  seen  in 
every  paper  that  has  been  laid  upon  our  desks.  I  see  that  the 
Honorable  Senator  from  the  27th,  in  presenting  one  of  the 
memorials  of  these  subsidized  country  churches,  thought  fit  to 
say  with  emphasis  that  it  was  from  a  low  church. 


46 


Mr.  Hale  : 

I  said  from  a  church  low  in  funds,  which  had  never  received 
the  bounty  of  Trinity. 

Mr.  Noxon  : 

If  she  is  low  in  funds,  then  probably  she  is  an  applicant  fo,r 
that  bounty.  These  churches  do  not  come  here  on  behalf  of 
Trinity,  unless  some  secret  spring  moves  and  controls  their 
action. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  Hon.  Senator  from  the  31st  was  a  little 
nighty  in  imagination,  when  depicting  the  serious  consequences 
that  would  follow  the  passage  of  this  bill.  It  does  not  appear 
to  me  that  the  matter  should  excite  such  an  outburst  of  elo- 
quence. Why,  who  are  the  corporators  of  the  church  now  ? 
Do  they  not  elect  the  Vestry?  What  is  to  occasion  this  tearing 
down  of  the  church — this  division  of  family  from  family — this 
severing  of  friend  from  friend  ?  The  bill  before  us  simply 
mentions  the  persons  who,  as  communicants  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  church  in  New-York,  are  to  be  entitled  to  vote  for 
vestrymen  of  the  church.  And  then  what  ?  Can  the  gentleman 
suppose  that  the  Episcopalians  in  New-York  are  so  lost  to  a 
sense  of  justice  as  to  elect  annually  to  the  positions  of  wardens 
and  vestrymen  such  men  as  are  fit  only  to  be  elected  at  the  6th 
Ward  polls?  Sir,  I  have  more  confidence  in  the  Episcopalians 
in  and  out  of  the  city  of  New-York  than  not  to  believe  that  they 
are  men  as  upright  and  honorable  as  any  of  those  who  appear 
here  as  the  special  advocates  of  Trinity.  Can  it  be  possible,  I 
ask,  that  the  Hon.  Senator  believes  the  Episcopalians  of  New- 
York  would  elect  men  who  would  not  discharge  their  sacred 
trust  faithfully  and  impartially?  I  think  when  he  comes  to 
reflect  upon  this  subject  more  maturely,  he  will  recall  any  such 
insinuation. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  bill  now  under  consideration  does  not,  as  I 
have  said,  alter  the  Vestry,  but  only  says  who  shall  elect  them. 
Now,  sir,  I  think  if  the  citizens  of  New-York,  outside  of  Trinity, 
could  have  only  a  single  member  elected  in  that  corporation,  it 
would  do  much  good.    Just  one — to  act  as  a  check  upon  the 


47 


Vestry.  But,  no  ;  even  that  proposition  would  not  be  listened  to 
by  the  church.  The  design  is  that  the  corporation  shall  be  a  close 
one  ;  that  neither  the  Rector,  nor  the  Bishop,  nor  the  corporation 
shall  know  anything  of  its  acts.  It  controls  the  Conventions  of 
the  Diocese,  so  as  to  put  into  power  High  Churchmen  only ;  and 
when  it  comes  into  the  Legislature,  it  can  be  seen  how  entirely  H 
controls  the  country  churches.  I  have  said  that  the  power  of 
Trinity  is  unquestionably  greater  than  that  of  any  railroad  or  bank, 
or  insurance  corporation  in  existence.  What  other  corporation  is 
there,  I  ask,  that  can  do  as  this  one  has  done  ?  She  has  poured 
in  memorials  upon  us  as  if  wires,  attached  to  every  clergyman  in 
the  State,  led  into  the  green  room  of  her  Vestry,  and  she  had  only 
to  pull  them  in  order  to  work  her  will.  3Not  five  days  had  elapsed 
when  we  found  these  memorials  pouring  in  from  churches  in  every 
part  of  the  State  of  New- York. 

From  all  portions  of  the  State  come  these  remonstrances 
against  the  Senate's  touching  Trinity,  because,  forsooth,  she  is  so 
sacred  in  the  eyes  of  the  country  churches  ! 

Mr.  Wadsworth  : 

It  is  the  natural  attachment  of  a  child  to  its  parent. 

Mr.  Noxon: 

The  Senator  says  it  is  the  natural  attachment  of  a  child  to  its 
parent.  I  ask  him  what  does  that  parent  do  to  her  other  children 
in  the  State  of  New- York?  And  who  are  these  children  who 
are  coming  here  and  displaying  so  much  fondness  and  affec- 
tion for  their  old  mother  church  1  Who,  but  those  who  are  re- 
ceiving or  expecting  bounties  from  her,  or  over  whom  she  holds 
mortgages  which  she  could  foreclose,  if  she  pleased,  to  punish 
them  for  neglecting  her  wishes  ? 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  not  true,  but  a  fiction  arising  in  the 
fancy  of  my  Honorable  friend,  that  the  money  of  this  church  is 
to  be  confiscated — the  church  to  be  torn  down — the  graves  to  be 
violated— and  the  whole  property  scattered  to  the  four  winds,  by 
the  vestry  to  be  elected  under  the  provisions  of  this  bill.  It  is  a 
dream  of  the  church,  which  I  am  sorry  to  say  my  Honorable 
friend  has  expressed  here  as  a  waking  dream,  and  not  a  sleeping 
dream. 


48 


I  say  it  is  a  matter  of  impossibility  to  suppose  these  things  pro- 
bable, because  when  I  mention  the  names  of  Luther  Bradish, 
Cambreleng,  Winston,  Brown,  Minturn,  Cooley,  Jay  and  Wolfe, 
the  men  who  are  accused  of  desiring  to  thus  dismember  Trinity, 
every  one  must  admit  they  stand  too  high  in  the  city  of  New-York 
to  be  reached  even  by  the  flights  of  fancy  of  my  honorable  friend, 
who,  in  the  excitement  of  debate,  made  this  charge  against  them. 

Mr.  Wadsworth  : 

I  ask  the  Senator  if  he  does  not  think  these  gentlemen  must 
have  been  a  little  excited  themselves  when  they  declared  that 
there  was  in  the  church  property  "enough  for  all?" 

Mr.  Noxon  : 

Well,  let  us  see  what  those  words  mean.  I  call  attention  to  the 
charge,  and  then  to  the  following  card,  which  I  will  read,  and 
upon  which  it  is  grounded  : 

New-York,  March  23,  1857. 
To  the  Editor  of  the  Gospel  Messenger,  Utica,  N.  Y. : 

Sir — In  your  comment  of  Friday  last  upon  our  "Statement  and 
Declaration,"  as  the  executive  committee  appointed  at  a  large 
meeting  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- York,  in  communion 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in  regard  to  the  affairs  of 
Trinity  Church,  you  do  us  great  injustice  in  stating  the  object  of 
our  movement  to  be  that  the  funds  of  the  church  shall  hereafter  be 
applied  " to  city  churches  only"  No  such  restrictive  phrase  has 
ever  been  used  by  us,  or  was  heard  at  the  meeting  which  appointed 
us,  or  has  found  expression  in  any  of  our  more  informal  conver- 
sation on  the  subject ;  and,  so  far  as  we  know,  there  is  no  restric- 
tive design  or  desire  cherished  by  any  of  ourselves,  or  of  those 
who  act  with  us  in  this  matter.  This  charge,  to  which  we  now 
reply,  has  been  from  the  first  an  altogether  gratuitous  injustice  to 
our  motives,  which  we  have  always  repudiated  as  utterly  un- 
founded. There  is  no  reason  why  we  of  the  city  should  have 
any  desire  to  diminish,  in  any  way,  the  aid  hitherto  extended  to 
the  country  ;  for  we  believe,  and  it  has  been  proved,  that  there  is 


49 


enough  for  all ;  and  onr  desire  is,  that  all  may  impartially  par- 
ticipate therein. 

L.  BRADISH,  ROBERT  B.  MINTURN, 

S.  CAMBRELENG,        J.  E.  COOLEY, 
F.  S.  WINSTON,  WILLIAM  JAY, 

STEWART  BROWN,      JOHN  DAVID  WOLFE, 

Committee. 

Now,  what  do  these  gentlemen  mean  by  saying  that  there 
is  "  enough  for  all  ?"  Simply  that  there  is  enough  in  this  great 
fund  of  Trinity  Church  to  aid  not  only  the  city,  but  the 
country  churches  as  well.  What  does  the  Senator  mean  by 
stating  that  these  persons  are  acting  against  the  country 
churches,  and  in  the  same  breath  finding  fault  with  them  when 
they  say  there  is  "enough  for  all"  these  churches?  I  repeat, 
Mr.  Chairman,  what  I  have  before  stated,  that  the  charge 
is  entirely  groundless,  that  these  men  are  unwilling  that 
Trinity's  fund  should  aid  the  country  churches.  I  repeat  that 
they  give  more  annually  out  of  their  own  means  to  the  country 
churches  than  Trinity  herself  gives;  and  1  say  that  it  is  to 
prove  their  desire  to  assist  the  country  churches  that  they  use 
in  their  card  the  words  so  offensive  to  the  Senator  from  the 
31st — "there  is  enough  for  all." 
5 


1Ex  IGtbrta 


SEYMOUR  DURST 


~t '  'Tort  nwiw  ^irnflerdam-  of  Je  JAanhatarus 


IVben  you  leave,  please  leave  this  book 

Because  it  has  been  said 
" Ever  thing  comes  t'  him  who  waits 

Except  a  loaned  book." 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


